As most here know, I m totally blind. One of my roles involves a contract for the US Government, under which I have a government email account. The department recently received a message talking about our work to end, to the maximum extend permitted by law, all diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility efforts in the government in accordance with the recently signed executive order. We are all reminded that if we timely identify the contracts and positions that are related to these efforts, there will be no consequences. There are a lot of times in my life when I have felt marginalized frustrated and angry that people weren t interested in working with me to make the small changes that would help me fit in. As an example with this government job, I asked to have access to a screen reader so that I could use my computer. My preferred adaptive software was not approved, even though it was thousands of dollars cheaper than the option the government wanted and could have been installed instantly rather than waiting for a multi-week ordering process. When the screen reader eventually became available, the government-provided installer was not accessible: a blind person could not use it. When I asked for help, the government added an additional multi-week delay because they weren t sure that the license management technology for the software they had chosen met the government s security and privacy policies. Which is to say that even with people actively working toward accessibility, sharing a commitment that accessibility is important, we have a lot of work to do. I feel very targeted at the current time. Now we are removing as many of the resources that help me be effective and feel welcome as we can. Talking about the lack of consequences now is just a way to remind everyone that there will be consequences later and get the fear going. The witch hunt is coming, and if people do a good enough job of turning in all the people who could help me feel welcome, they won t face consequences. Yes, I understand that the Americans with Disabilities act is still law, but its effectiveness will be very different in a climate where you need to eliminate accessibility positions to avoid consequences than in a climate where accessibility is a goal.

comments

In 2024, I was sponsored by The Document Foundation (TDF) to attend the LibreOffice annual conference in Luxembourg from the 10th to the 12th of October. Being an Indian passport holder, I needed a visa to visit Luxembourg. However, due to my Kenya trip coming up in September, I ran into a dilemma: whether to apply before or after the Kenya trip. To obtain a visa, I needed to submit my application with VFS Global (and not with the Luxembourg embassy directly). Therefore, I checked the VFS website for information on processing time, which says:

As a rule, the processing time of an admissible Schengen visa application should not exceed 15 calendar days (from the date the application is received at the Embassy).

It also mentions:

If the application is received less than 15 calendar days before the intended travel date, the Embassy can deem your application inadmissible. If so, your visa application will not be processed by the Embassy and the application will be sent back to VFS along with the passport.

If I applied for the Luxembourg visa before my trip, I would run the risk of not getting my passport back in time, and therefore missing my Kenya flight. On the other hand, if I waited until after returning from Kenya, I would run afoul of the aforementioned 15 working days needed by the embassy to process my application. I had previously applied for a Schengen visa for Austria, which was completed in 7 working days. My friends who had been to France told me they got their visa decision within a week. So, I compared Luxembourg s application numbers with those of other Schengen countries. In 2023, Luxembourg received 3,090 applications from India, while Austria received 39,558, Italy received 52,332 and France received 176,237. Since Luxembourg receives a far fewer number of applications, I expected the process to be quick. Therefore, I submitted my visa application with VFS Global in Delhi on the 5th of August, giving the embassy a month with 18 working days before my Kenya trip. However, I didn t mention my Kenya trip in the Luxembourg visa application. For reference, here is a list of documents I submitted:

• Passport
• Photocopy of passport data pages
• Visa application form
• One photograph
• Visa appointment confirmation
• Cover letter
• Return flight reservations
• Hotel bookings
• Invitation letter from the conference organizer, TDF
• Confirmation from The Luxembourg Convention Bureau G.I.E - the venue
• Last three months bank account statement with bank seal
• Travel insurance
• Income Tax Return Statement
• Monthly payslips for the last three months

I submitted flight reservations instead of flight tickets . It is because, in case of visa rejection, I would have lost a significant amount of money if I booked confirmed flight tickets. The embassy also recommends the same. After the submission of documents, my fingerprints were taken. The expenses for the visa application were as follows:

Service Description	Amount (INR)
Visa Fee	8,114
VFS Global Fee	1,763
Courier	800
Total	10,677

Going by the emails sent by VFS, my application reached the Luxembourg embassy the next day. Fast-forward to the 27th of August 14th day of my visa application. I had already booked my flight ticket to Nairobi for the 4th of September, but my passport was still with the Luxembourg embassy, and I hadn t heard back. In addition, I also obtained Kenya s eTA and got vaccinated for Yellow Fever, a requirement to travel to Kenya. In order to check on my application status, I gave the embassy a phone call, but missed their calling window, which was easy to miss since it was only 1 hour - 12:00 to 1:00 PM. So, I dropped them an email explaining my situation. At this point, I was already wondering whether to cancel the Kenya trip or the Luxembourg one, if I had to choose. After not getting a response to my email, I called them again the next day. The embassy told me they would look into it and asked me to send my flight tickets over email. One week to go before my flight now. I followed up with the embassy on the 30th by a phone call, and the person who picked up the call told me that my request had already been forwarded to the concerned department and is under process. They asked me to follow up on Monday, 2nd September. During the visa process, I was in touch with three other Indian attendees.¹ In the meantime, I got to know that all of them had applied for a Luxembourg visa by the end of the month of August. Back to our story, over the next two days, the embassy closed for the weekend. I began weighing my options. On one hand, I could cancel the Kenya trip and hope that Luxembourg goes through. Even then, Luxembourg wasn t guaranteed as the visa could get rejected, so I might have ended up missing both the trips. On the other hand, I could cancel the Luxembourg visa application and at least be sure of going to Kenya. However, I thought it would make Luxembourg very unlikely because it didn t leave 15 working days for the embassy to process my visa after returning from Kenya. I also badly wanted to attend the LibreOffice conference because I couldn t make it two years ago. Therefore, I chose not to cancel my Luxembourg visa application. I checked with my travel agent and learned that I could cancel my Nairobi flight before September 4th for a cancelation fee of approximately 7,000 INR. On the 2nd of September, I was a bit frustrated because I hadn t heard anything from the embassy regarding my request. Therefore, I called the embassy again. They assured me that they would arrange a call for me from the concerned department that day, which I did receive later that evening. During the call, they offered to return my passport via VFS the next day and asked me to resubmit it after returning from Kenya. I immediately accepted the offer and was overjoyed, as it would enable me to take my flight to Nairobi without canceling my Luxembourg visa application. However, I didn t have the offer in writing, so it wasn t clear to me how I would collect my passport from VFS. The next day, I would receive it when I would be on my way to VFS in the form of an email from the embassy which read:

Dear Mr. Dwivedi, We acknowledge the receipt of your email. As you requested, we are returning your passport exceptionally through VFS, you can collect it directly from VFS Delhi Center between 14:00-17:00 hrs, 03 Sep 2024. Kindly bring the printout of this email along with your VFS deposit receipt and Original ID proof. Once you are back from your trip, you can redeposit the passport with VFS Luxembourg for our processing. With best regards,
Consular Section GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG
Embassy in New Delhi

I took a printout of the email and submitted it to VFS to get my passport. This seemed like a miracle - just when I lost all hope of making it to my Kenya flight and was mentally preparing myself to miss it, I got my passport back exceptionally and now I had to mentally prepare again for Kenya. I had never heard of an embassy returning passport before completing the visa process before. The next day, I took my flight to Nairobi as planned. In case you are interested, I have written two blog posts on my Kenya trip - one on the OpenStreetMap conference in Nairobi and the other on my travel experience in Kenya. After returning from Kenya, I resubmitted my passport on the 17th of September. Fast-forward to the 25th of September; I didn t hear anything from the embassy about my application process. So, I checked with TDF to see whether the embassy reached out to them. They told me they confirmed my participation and my hotel booking to the visa authorities on the 19th of September (6 days ago). I was wondering what was taking so long after the verification. On the 1st of October, I received a phone call from the Luxembourg embassy, which turned out to be a surprise interview. They asked me about my work, my income, how I came to know about the conference, whether I had been to Europe before, etc. The call lasted around 10 minutes. At this point, my travel date - 8th of October - was just two working days away as the 2nd of October was off due to Gandhi Jayanti and 5th and 6th October were weekends, leaving only the 3rd and the 4th. I am not sure why the embassy saved this for the last moment, even though I submitted my application 2 months ago. I also got to know that one of the other Indian attendees missed the call due to being in their college lab, where he was not allowed to take phone calls. Therefore, I recommend that the embassy agree on a time slot for the interview call beforehand. Visa decisions for all the above-mentioned Indian attendees were sent by the embassy on the 4th of October, and I received mine on the 5th. For my travel date of 8th October, this was literally the last moment the embassy could send my visa. The parcel contained my passport and a letter. The visa was attached to a page in the passport. I was happy that my visa had been approved. However, the timing made my task challenging. The enclosed letter stated:

Subject: Your Visa Application for Luxembourg

Dear Applicant, We would like to inform you that a Schengen visa has been granted for the 8-day duration from 08/10/2024 to 30/10/2024 for conference purposes in Luxembourg. You are requested to report back to the Embassy of Luxembourg in New Delhi through an email (email address redacted) after your return with the following documents:

• Immigration Stamps (Entry and Exit of Schengen Area)
• Restaurant Bills
• Shopping/Hotel/Accommodation bills

Failure to report to the Embassy after your return will be taken into consideration for any further visa applications.

I understand the embassy wanting to ensure my entry and exit from the Schengen area during the visa validity period, but found the demand for sending shopping bills excessive. Further, not everyone was as lucky as I was as it took a couple of days for one of the Indian attendees to receive their visa, delaying their plan. Another attendee had to send their father to the VFS center to collect their visa in time, rather than wait for the courier to arrive at their home. Foreign travel is complicated, especially for the citizens of countries whose passports and currencies are weak. Embassies issuing visas a day before the travel date doesn t help. For starters, a last-minute visa does not give enough time for obtaining a forex card as banks ask for the visa. Further, getting foreign currency (Euros in our case) in cash with a good exchange rate becomes difficult. As an example, for the Kenya trip, I had to get US Dollars at the airport due to the plan being finalized at the last moment, worsening the exchange rate. Back to the current case, the flight prices went up significantly compared to September, almost doubling. The choice of airlines also got narrowed, as most of the flights got booked by the time I received my visa. With all that said, I think it was still better than an arbitrary rejection. Credits: Contrapunctus, Badri, Fletcher, Benson, and Anirudh for helping with the draft of this post.

In light of this week s announcement by Meta (Facebook, Instagram, Threads, etc), I have been pondering this question: Why am I, a person that has long been a staunch advocate of free speech and encryption, leery of sites that talk about being free speech-oriented? And, more to the point, why an I a person that has been censored by Facebook for mentioning the Open Source social network Mastodon not cheering a lighter touch ? The answers are complicated, and take me back to the early days of social networking. Yes, I mean the 1980s and 1990s. Before digital communications, there were barriers to reaching a lot of people. Especially money. This led to a sort of self-censorship: it may be legal to write certain things, but would a newspaper publish a letter to the editor containing expletives? Probably not. As digital communications started to happen, suddenly people could have their own communities. Not just free from the same kinds of monetary pressures, but free from outside oversight (parents, teachers, peers, community, etc.) When you have a community that the majority of people lack the equipment to access and wouldn t understand how to access even if they had the equipment you have a place where self-expression can be unleashed. And, as J. C. Herz covers in what is now an unintentional history (her book Surfing on the Internet was published in 1995), self-expression WAS unleashed. She enjoyed the wit and expression of everything from odd corners of Usenet to the text-based open world of MOOs and MUDs. She even talks about groups dedicated to insults (flaming) in positive terms. But as I ve seen time and again, if there are absolutely no rules, then whenever a group gets big enough more than a few dozen people, say there are troublemakers that ruin it for everyone. Maybe it s trolling, maybe it s vicious attacks, you name it it will arrive and it will be poisonous. I remember the debates within the Debian community about this. Debian is one of the pillars of the Internet today, a nonprofit project with free speech in its DNA. And yet there were inevitably the poisonous people. Debian took too long to learn that allowing those people to run rampant was causing more harm than good, because having a well-worn Delete key and a tolerance for insults became a requirement for being a Debian developer, and that drove away people that had no desire to deal with such things. (I should note that Debian strikes a much better balance today.) But in reality, there were never absolutely no rules. If you joined a BBS, you used it at the whim of the owner (the sysop or system operator). The sysop may be a 16-yr-old running it from their bedroom, or a retired programmer, but in any case they were letting you use their resources for free and they could kick you off for any or no reason at all. So if you caused trouble, or perhaps insulted their cat, you re banned. But, in all but the smallest towns, there were other options you could try. On the other hand, sysops enjoyed having people call their BBSs and didn t want to drive everyone off, so there was a natural balance at play. As networks like Fidonet developed, a sort of uneasy approach kicked in: don t be excessively annoying, and don t be easily annoyed. Like it or not, it seemed to generally work. A BBS that repeatedly failed to deal with troublemakers could risk removal from Fidonet. On the more institutional Usenet, you generally got access through your university (or, in a few cases, employer). Most universities didn t really even know they were running a Usenet server, and you were generally left alone. Until you did something that annoyed somebody enough that they tracked down the phone number for your dean, in which case real-world consequences would kick in. A site may face the Usenet Death Penalty delinking from the network if they repeatedly failed to prevent malicious content from flowing through their site. Some BBSs let people from minority communities such as LGBTQ+ thrive in a place of peace from tormentors. A lot of them let people be themselves in a way they couldn t be in real life . And yes, some harbored trolls and flamers. The point I am trying to make here is that each BBS, or Usenet site, set their own policies about what their own users could do. These had to be harmonized to a certain extent with the global community, but in a certain sense, with BBSs especially, you could just use a different one if you didn t like what the vibe was at a certain place. That this free speech ethos survived was never inevitable. There were many attempts to regulate the Internet, and it was thanks to the advocacy of groups like the EFF that we have things like strong encryption and a degree of freedom online. With the rise of the very large platforms and here I mean CompuServe and AOL at first, and then Facebook, Twitter, and the like later the low-friction option of just choosing a different place started to decline. You could participate on a Fidonet forum from any of thousands of BBSs, but you could only participate in an AOL forum from AOL. The same goes for Facebook, Twitter, and so forth. Not only that, but as social media became conceived of as very large sites, it became impossible for a person with enough skill, funds, and time to just start a site themselves. Instead of neading a few thousand dollars of equipment, you d need tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment and employees. All that means you can t really run Facebook as a nonprofit. It is a business. It should be absolutely clear to everyone that Facebook s mission is not the one they say it is [to] give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. If that was their goal, they wouldn t be creating AI users and AI spam and all the rest. Zuck isn t showing courage; he s sucking up to Trump and those that will pay the price are those that always do: women and minorities. Really, the point of any large social network isn t to build community. It s to make the owners their next billion. They do that by convincing people to look at ads on their site. Zuck is as much a windsock as anyone else; he will adjust policies in whichever direction he thinks the wind is blowing so as to let him keep putting ads in front of eyeballs, and stomp all over principles even free speech doing it. Don t expect anything different from any large commercial social network either. Bluesky is going to follow the same trajectory as all the others. The problem with a one-size-fits-all content policy is that the world isn t that kind of place. For instance, I am a pacifist. There is a place for a group where pacifists can hang out with each other, free from the noise of the debate about pacifism. And there is a place for the debate. Forcing everyone that signs up for the conversation to sign up for the debate is harmful. Preventing the debate is often also harmful. One company can t square this circle. Beyond that, the fact that we care so much about one company is a problem on two levels. First, it indicates how succeptible people are to misinformation and such. I don t have much to offer on that point. Secondly, it indicates that we are too centralized. We have a solution there: Mastodon. Mastodon is a modern, open source, decentralized social network. You can join any instance, easily migrate your account from one server to another, and so forth. You pick an instance that suits you. There are thousands of others you can choose from. Some aggressively defederate with instances known to harbor poisonous people; some don t. And, to harken back to the BBS era, if you have some time, some skill, and a few bucks, you can run your own Mastodon instance. Personally, I still visit Facebook on occasion because some people I care about are mainly there. But it is such a terrible experience that I rarely do. Meta is becoming irrelevant to me. They are on a path to becoming irrelevant to many more as well. Maybe this is the moment to go shrug, this sucks and try something better. (And when you do, feel free to say hi to me at @jgoerzen@floss.social on Mastodon.)

At work, I've been maintaining a perl script that needs to run a number of steps as part of a release workflow. Initially, that script was very simple, but over time it has grown to do a number of things. And then some of those things did not need to be run all the time. And then we wanted to do this one exceptional thing for this one case. And so on; eventually the script became a big mess of configuration options and unreadable flow, and so I decided that I wanted it to be more configurable. I sat down and spent some time on this, and eventually came up with what I now realize is a domain-specific language (DSL) in JSON, implemented by creating objects in Moose, extensible by writing more object classes. Let me explain how it works. In order to explain, however, I need to explain some perl and Moose basics first. If you already know all that, you can safely skip ahead past the "Preliminaries" section that's next.

Preliminaries

Moose object creation, references. In Moose, creating a class is done something like this:

package Foo;
use v5.40;
use Moose;
has 'attribute' => (
    is  => 'ro',
    isa => 'Str',
    required => 1
);
sub say_something  
    my $self = shift;
    say "Hello there, our attribute is " . $self->attribute;
 

The above is a class that has a single attribute called attribute. To create an object, you use the Moose constructor on the class, and pass it the attributes you want:

use v5.40;
use Foo;
my $foo = Foo->new(attribute => "foo");
$foo->say_something;

(output: Hello there, our attribute is foo) This creates a new object with the attribute attribute set to bar. The attribute accessor is a method generated by Moose, which functions both as a getter and a setter (though in this particular case we made the attribute "ro", meaning read-only, so while it can be set at object creation time it cannot be changed by the setter anymore). So yay, an object. And it has methods, things that we set ourselves. Basic OO, all that. One of the peculiarities of perl is its concept of "lists". Not to be confused with the lists of python -- a concept that is called "arrays" in perl and is somewhat different -- in perl, lists are enumerations of values. They can be used as initializers for arrays or hashes, and they are used as arguments to subroutines. Lists cannot be nested; whenever a hash or array is passed in a list, the list is "flattened", that is, it becomes one big list. This means that the below script is functionally equivalent to the above script that uses our "Foo" object:

use v5.40;
use Foo;
my %args;
$args attribute  = "foo";
my $foo = Foo->new(%args);
$foo->say_something;

(output: Hello there, our attribute is foo) This creates a hash %args wherein we set the attributes that we want to pass to our constructor. We set one attribute in %args, the one called attribute, and then use %args and rely on list flattening to create the object with the same attribute set (list flattening turns a hash into a list of key-value pairs). Perl also has a concept of "references". These are scalar values that point to other values; the other value can be a hash, a list, or another scalar. There is syntax to create a non-scalar value at assignment time, called anonymous references, which is useful when one wants to remember non-scoped values. By default, references are not flattened, and this is what allows you to create multidimensional values in perl; however, it is possible to request list flattening by dereferencing the reference. The below example, again functionally equivalent to the previous two examples, demonstrates this:

use v5.40;
use Foo;
my $args =  ;
$args-> attribute  = "foo";
my $foo = Foo->new(%$args);
$foo->say_something;

(output: Hello there, our attribute is foo) This creates a scalar $args, which is a reference to an anonymous hash. Then, we set the key attribute of that anonymous hash to bar (note the use arrow operator here, which is used to indicate that we want to dereference a reference to a hash), and create the object using that reference, requesting hash dereferencing and flattening by using a double sigil, %$. As a side note, objects in perl are references too, hence the fact that we have to use the dereferencing arrow to access the attributes and methods of Moose objects. Moose attributes don't have to be strings or even simple scalars. They can also be references to hashes or arrays, or even other objects:

package Bar;
use v5.40;
use Moose;
extends 'Foo';
has 'hash_attribute' => (
    is => 'ro',
    isa => 'HashRef[Str]',
    predicate => 'has_hash_attribute',
);
has 'object_attribute' => (
    is => 'ro',
    isa => 'Foo',
    predicate => 'has_object_attribute',
);
sub say_something  
    my $self = shift;
    if($self->has_object_attribute)  
        $self->object_attribute->say_something;
     
    $self->SUPER::say_something unless $self->has_hash_attribute;
    say "We have a hash attribute!"
 

This creates a subclass of Foo called Bar that has a hash attribute called hash_attribute, and an object attribute called object_attribute. Both of them are references; one to a hash, the other to an object. The hash ref is further limited in that it requires that each value in the hash must be a string (this is optional but can occasionally be useful), and the object ref in that it must refer to an object of the class Foo, or any of its subclasses. The predicates used here are extra subroutines that Moose provides if you ask for them, and which allow you to see if an object's attribute has a value or not. The example script would use an object like this:

use v5.40;
use Bar;
my $foo = Foo->new(attribute => "foo");
my $bar = Bar->new(object_attribute => $foo, attribute => "bar");
$bar->say_something;

(output: Hello there, our attribute is foo) This example also shows object inheritance, and methods implemented in child classes. Okay, that's it for perl and Moose basics. On to...

Moose Coercion Moose has a concept of "value coercion". Value coercion allows you to tell Moose that if it sees one thing but expects another, it should convert is using a passed subroutine before assigning the value. That sounds a bit dense without example, so let me show you how it works. Reimaginging the Bar package, we could use coercion to eliminate one object creation step from the creation of a Bar object:

package "Bar";
use v5.40;
use Moose;
use Moose::Util::TypeConstraints;
extends "Foo";
coerce "Foo",
    from "HashRef",
    via   Foo->new(%$_)  ;
has 'hash_attribute' => (
    is => 'ro',
    isa => 'HashRef',
    predicate => 'has_hash_attribute',
);
has 'object_attribute' => (
    is => 'ro',
    isa => 'Foo',
    coerce => 1,
    predicate => 'has_object_attribute',
);
sub say_something  
    my $self = shift;
    if($self->has_object_attribute)  
        $self->object_attribute->say_something;
     
    $self->SUPER::say_something unless $self->has_hash_attribute;
    say "We have a hash attribute!"
 

Okay, let's unpack that a bit. First, we add the Moose::Util::TypeConstraints module to our package. This is required to declare coercions. Then, we declare a coercion to tell Moose how to convert a HashRef to a Foo object: by using the Foo constructor on a flattened list created from the hashref that it is given. Then, we update the definition of the object_attribute to say that it should use coercions. This is not the default, because going through the list of coercions to find the right one has a performance penalty, so if the coercion is not requested then we do not do it. This allows us to simplify declarations. With the updated Bar class, we can simplify our example script to this:

use v5.40;
use Bar;
my $bar = Bar->new(attribute => "bar", object_attribute =>   attribute => "foo"  );
$bar->say_something

(output: Hello there, our attribute is foo) Here, the coercion kicks in because the value object_attribute, which is supposed to be an object of class Foo, is instead a hash ref. Without the coercion, this would produce an error message saying that the type of the object_attribute attribute is not a Foo object. With the coercion, however, the value that we pass to object_attribute is passed to a Foo constructor using list flattening, and then the resulting Foo object is assigned to the object_attribute attribute. Coercion works for more complicated things, too; for instance, you can use coercion to coerce an array of hashes into an array of objects, by creating a subtype first:

package MyCoercions;
use v5.40;
use Moose;
use Moose::Util::TypeConstraints;
use Foo;
subtype "ArrayOfFoo", as "ArrayRef[Foo]";
subtype "ArrayOfHashes", as "ArrayRef[HashRef]";
coerce "ArrayOfFoo", from "ArrayOfHashes", via   [ map   Foo->create(%$_)   @ $_  ]  ;

Ick. That's a bit more complex. What happens here is that we use the map function to iterate over a list of values. The given list of values is @ $_ , which is perl for "dereference the default value as an array reference, and flatten the list of values in that array reference". So the ArrayRef of HashRefs is dereferenced and flattened, and each HashRef in the ArrayRef is passed to the map function. The map function then takes each hash ref in turn and passes it to the block of code that it is also given. In this case, that block is Foo->create(%$_) . In other words, we invoke the create factory method with the flattened hashref as an argument. This returns an object of the correct implementation (assuming our hash ref has a type attribute set), and with all attributes of their object set to the correct value. That value is then returned from the block (this could be made more explicit with a return call, but that is optional, perl defaults a return value to the rvalue of the last expression in a block). The map function then returns a list of all the created objects, which we capture in an anonymous array ref (the [] square brackets), i.e., an ArrayRef of Foo object, passing the Moose requirement of ArrayRef[Foo]. Usually, I tend to put my coercions in a special-purpose package. Although it is not strictly required by Moose, I find that it is useful to do this, because Moose does not allow a coercion to be defined if a coercion for the same type had already been done in a different package. And while it is theoretically possible to make sure you only ever declare a coercion once in your entire codebase, I find that doing so is easier to remember if you put all your coercions in a specific package. Okay, now you understand Moose object coercion! On to...

Dynamic module loading Perl allows loading modules at runtime. In the most simple case, you just use require inside a stringy eval:

my $module = "Foo";
eval "require $module";

This loads "Foo" at runtime. Obviously, the $module string could be a computed value, it does not have to be hardcoded. There are some obvious downsides to doing things this way, mostly in the fact that a computed value can basically be anything and so without proper checks this can quickly become an arbitrary code vulnerability. As such, there are a number of distributions on CPAN to help you with the low-level stuff of figuring out what the possible modules are, and how to load them. For the purposes of my script, I used Module::Pluggable. Its API is fairly simple and straightforward:

package Foo;
use v5.40;
use Moose;
use Module::Pluggable require => 1;
has 'attribute' => (
    is => 'ro',
    isa => 'Str',
);
has 'type' => (
    is => 'ro',
    isa => 'Str',
    required => 1,
);
sub handles_type  
    return 0;
 
sub create  
    my $class = shift;
    my %data = @_;
    foreach my $impl($class->plugins)  
        if($impl->can("handles_type") && $impl->handles_type($data type ))  
            return $impl->new(%data);
         
     
    die "could not find a plugin for type " . $data type ;
 
sub say_something  
    my $self = shift;
    say "Hello there, I am a " . $self->type;
 

The new concept here is the plugins class method, which is added by Module::Pluggable, and which searches perl's library paths for all modules that are in our namespace. The namespace is configurable, but by default it is the name of our module; so in the above example, if there were a package "Foo::Bar" which

• has a subroutine handles_type
• that returns a truthy value when passed the value of the type key in a hash that is passed to the create subroutine,
• then the create subroutine creates a new object with the passed key/value pairs used as attribute initializers.

Let's implement a Foo::Bar package:

package Foo::Bar;
use v5.40;
use Moose;
extends 'Foo';
has 'type' => (
    is => 'ro',
    isa => 'Str',
    required => 1,
);
has 'serves_drinks' => (
    is => 'ro',
    isa => 'Bool',
    default => 0,
);
sub handles_type  
    my $class = shift;
    my $type = shift;
    return $type eq "bar";
 
sub say_something  
    my $self = shift;
    $self->SUPER::say_something;
    say "I serve drinks!" if $self->serves_drinks;
 

We can now indirectly use the Foo::Bar package in our script:

use v5.40;
use Foo;
my $obj = Foo->create(type => bar, serves_drinks => 1);
$obj->say_something;

output:

Hello there, I am a bar.
I serve drinks!

Okay, now you understand all the bits and pieces that are needed to understand how I created the DSL engine. On to...

Putting it all together We're actually quite close already. The create factory method in the last version of our Foo package allows us to decide at run time which module to instantiate an object of, and to load that module at run time. We can use coercion and list flattening to turn a reference to a hash into an object of the correct type. We haven't looked yet at how to turn a JSON data structure into a hash, but that bit is actually ridiculously trivial:

use JSON::MaybeXS;
my $data = decode_json($json_string);

Tada, now $data is a reference to a deserialized version of the JSON string: if the JSON string contained an object, $data is a hashref; if the JSON string contained an array, $data is an arrayref, etc. So, in other words, to create an extensible JSON-based DSL that is implemented by Moose objects, all we need to do is create a system that

• takes hash refs to set arguments
• has factory methods to create objects, which
  • uses Module::Pluggable to find the available object classes, and
  • uses the type attribute to figure out which object class to use to create the object
• uses coercion to convert hash refs into objects using these factory methods

In practice, we could have a JSON file with the following structure:

 
    "description": "do stuff",
    "actions": [
         
            "type": "bar",
            "serves_drinks": true,
         ,
         
            "type": "bar",
            "serves_drinks": false,
         
    ]
 

... and then we could have a Moose object definition like this:

package MyDSL;
use v5.40;
use Moose;
use MyCoercions;
has "description" => (
    is => 'ro',
    isa => 'Str',
);
has 'actions' => (
    is => 'ro',
    isa => 'ArrayOfFoo'
    coerce => 1,
    required => 1,
);
sub say_something  
    say "Hello there, I am described as " . $self->description . " and I am performing my actions: ";
    foreach my $action(@ $self->actions )  
        $action->say_something;
     
 

Now, we can write a script that loads this JSON file and create a new object using the flattened arguments:

use v5.40;
use MyDSL;
use JSON::MaybeXS;
my $input_file_name = shift;
my $args = do  
    local $/ = undef;
    open my $input_fh, "<", $input_file_name or die "could not open file";
    <$input_fh>;
 ;
$args = decode_json($args);
my $dsl = MyDSL->new(%$args);
$dsl->say_something

Output:

Hello there, I am described as do stuff and I am performing my actions:
Hello there, I am a bar
I am serving drinks!
Hello there, I am a bar

In some more detail, this will:

• Read the JSON file and deserialize it;
• Pass the object keys in the JSON file as arguments to a constructor of the MyDSL class;
• The MyDSL class then uses those arguments to set its attributes, using Moose coercion to convert the "actions" array of hashes into an array of Foo::Bar objects.
• Perform the say_something method on the MyDSL object

Once this is written, extending the scheme to also support a "quux" type simply requires writing a Foo::Quux class, making sure it has a method handles_type that returns a truthy value when called with quux as the argument, and installing it into the perl library path. This is rather easy to do. It can even be extended deeper, too; if the quux type requires a list of arguments rather than just a single argument, it could itself also have an array attribute with relevant coercions. These coercions could then be used to convert the list of arguments into an array of objects of the correct type, using the same schema as above. The actual DSL is of course somewhat more complex, and also actually does something useful, in contrast to the DSL that we define here which just says things. Creating an object that actually performs some action when required is left as an exercise to the reader.

Review: Number Go Up, by Zeke Faux

Publisher:	Crown Currency
Copyright:	2023
Printing:	2024
ISBN:	0-593-44382-9
Format:	Kindle
Pages:	373

Number Go Up is a cross between a history and a first-person account of investigative journalism around the cryptocurrency bubble and subsequent collapse in 2022. The edition I read has an afterward from June 2024 that brings the story up to date with Sam Bankman-Fried's trial and a few other events. Zeke Faux is a reporter for Bloomberg News and a fellow of New America. Last year, I read Michael Lewis's Going Infinite, a somewhat-sympathetic book-length profile of Sam Bankman-Fried that made a lot of people angry. One of the common refrains at the time was that people should read Number Go Up instead, and since I'm happy to read more about the absurdities of the cryptocurrency world, I finally got around to reading the other big crypto book of 2023. This is a good book, with some caveats that I am about to explain at absurd length. If you want a skeptical history of the cryptocurrency bubble, you should read it. People who think that it's somehow in competition with Michael Lewis's book or who think the two books disagree (including Faux himself) have profoundly missed the point of Going Infinite. I agree with Matt Levine: Both of these books are worth your time if this is the sort of thing you like reading about. But (much) more on Faux's disagreements with Lewis later. The frame of Number Go Up is Faux's quixotic quest to prove that Tether is a fraud. To review this book, I therefore need to briefly explain what Tether is. This is only the first of many extended digressions. One natural way to buy cryptocurrency would be to follow the same pattern as a stock brokerage account. You would deposit some amount of money into the account (or connect the brokerage account to your bank account), and then exchange money for cryptocurrency or vice versa, using bank transfers to put money in or take it out. However, there are several problems with this. One is that swapping cryptocurrency for money is awkward and sometimes expensive. Another is that holding people's investment money for them is usually highly regulated, partly for customer safety but also to prevent money laundering. These are often called KYC laws (Know Your Customer), and the regulation-hostile world of cryptocurrency didn't want to comply with them. Tether is a stablecoin, which means that the company behind Tether attempts to guarantee that one Tether is always worth exactly one US dollar. It is not a speculative investment like Bitcoin; it's a cryptocurrency substitute for dollars. People exchange dollars for Tether to get their money into the system and then settle all of their subsequent trades in Tether, only converting the Tether back to dollars when they want to take their money out of cryptocurrency entirely. In essence, Tether functions like the cash reserve in a brokerage account: Your Tether holdings are supposedly guaranteed to be equivalent to US dollars, you can withdraw them at any time, and because you can do so, you don't bother, instead leaving your money in the reserve account while you contemplate what new coin you want to buy. As with a bank, this system rests on the assurance that one can always exchange one Tether for one US dollar. The instant people stop believing this is true, people will scramble to get their money out of Tether, creating the equivalent of a bank run. Since Tether is not a regulated bank or broker and has no deposit insurance or strong legal protections, the primary defense against a run on Tether is Tether's promise that they hold enough liquid assets to be able to hand out dollars to everyone who wants to redeem Tether. (A secondary defense that I wish Faux had mentioned is that Tether limits redemptions to registered accounts redeeming more than $100,000, which is a tiny fraction of the people who hold Tether, but for most purposes this doesn't matter because that promise is sufficient to maintain the peg with the dollar.) Faux's firmly-held belief throughout this book is that Tether is lying. He believes they do not have enough money to redeem all existing Tether coins, and that rather than backing every coin with very safe liquid assets, they are using the dollars deposited in the system to make illiquid and risky investments. Faux never finds the evidence that he's looking for, which makes this narrative choice feel strange. His theory was tested when there was a run on Tether following the collapse of the Terra stablecoin. Tether passed without apparent difficulty, redeeming $16B or about 20% of the outstanding Tether coins. This doesn't mean Faux is wrong; being able to redeem 20% of the outstanding tokens is very different from being able to redeem 100%, and Tether has been fined for lying about its reserves. But Tether is clearly more stable than Faux thought it was, which makes the main narrative of the book weirdly unsatisfying. If he admitted he might be wrong, I would give him credit for showing his work even if it didn't lead where he expected, but instead he pivots to focusing on Tether's role in money laundering without acknowledging that his original theory took a serious blow. In Faux's pursuit of Tether, he wanders through most of the other elements of the cryptocurrency bubble, and that's the strength of this book. Rather than write Number Go Up as a traditional history, Faux chooses to closely follow his own thought processes and curiosity. This has the advantage of giving Faux an easy and natural narrative, something that non-fiction books of this type can struggle with, and it lets Faux show how confusing and off-putting the cryptocurrency world is to an outsider. The best parts of this book were the parts unrelated to Tether. Faux provides an excellent summary of the Axie Infinity speculative bubble and even traveled to the Philippines to interview people who were directly affected. He then wandered through the bizarre world of NFTs, and his first-hand account of purchasing one (specifically a Mutant Ape) to get entrance to a party (which sounded like a miserable experience I would pay money to get out of) really drives home how sketchy and weird cryptocurrency-related software and markets can be. He also went to El Salvador to talk to people directly about the country's supposed embrace of Bitcoin, and there's no substitute for that type of reporting to show how exaggerated and dishonest the claims of cryptocurrency adoption are. The disadvantage of this personal focus on Faux himself is that it sometimes feels tedious or sensationalized. I was much less interested in his unsuccessful attempts to interview the founder of Tether than Faux was, and while the digression into forced labor compounds in Cambodia devoted to pig butchering scams was informative (and horrific), I think Faux leaned too heavily on an indirect link to Tether. His argument is that cryptocurrency enables a type of money laundering that is particularly well-suited to supporting scams, but both scams and this type of economic slavery existed before cryptocurrency and will exist afterwards. He did not make a very strong case that Tether was uniquely valuable as a money laundering service, as opposed to a currently useful tool that would be replaced with some other tool should it go away. This part of the book is essentially an argument that money laundering is bad because it enables crime, and sure, to an extent I agree. But if you're going to put this much emphasis on the evils of money laundering, I think you need to at least acknowledge that many people outside the United States do not want to give US government, which is often openly hostile to them, veto power over their financial transactions. Faux does not. The other big complaint I have with this book, and with a lot of other reporting on cryptocurrency, is that Faux is sloppy with the term "Ponzi scheme." This is going to sound like nit-picking, but I think this sloppiness matters because it may obscure an ongoing a shift in cryptocurrency markets. A Ponzi scheme is not any speculative bubble. It is a very specific type of fraud in which investors are promised improbably high returns at very low risk and with safe principal. These returns are paid out, not via investment in some underlying enterprise, but by taking the money from new investments and paying it to earlier investors. Ponzi schemes are doomed because satisfying their promises requires a constantly increasing flow of new investors. Since the population of the world is finite, all Ponzi schemes are mathematically guaranteed to eventually fail, often in a sudden death spiral of ever-increasing promises to lure new investors when the investment stream starts to dry up. There are some Ponzi schemes in cryptocurrency, but most practices that are called Ponzi schemes are not. For example, Faux calls Axie Infinity a Ponzi scheme, but it was missing the critical elements of promised safe returns and fraudulently paying returns from the investments of later investors. It was simply a speculative bubble that people bought into on the assumption that its price would increase, and like any speculative bubble those who sold before the peak made money at the expense of those who bought at the peak. The reason why this matters is that Ponzi schemes are a self-correcting problem. One can decry the damage caused when they collapse, but one can also feel the reassuring certainty that they will inevitably collapse and prove the skeptics correct. The same is not true of speculative assets in general. You may think that the lack of an underlying economic justification for prices means that a speculative bubble is guaranteed to collapse eventually, but in the famous words of Gary Schilling, "markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent." One of the people Faux interviews explains this distinction to him directly:

Rong explained that in a true Ponzi scheme, the organizer would have to handle the "fraud money." Instead, he gave the sneakers away and then only took a small cut of each trade. "The users are trading between each other. They are not going through me, right?" Rong said. Essentially, he was arguing that by downloading the Stepn app and walking to earn tokens, crypto bros were Ponzi'ing themselves.

Faux is openly contemptuous of this response, but it is technically correct. Stepn is not a Ponzi scheme; it's a speculative bubble. There are no guaranteed returns being paid out of later investments and no promise that your principal is safe. People are buying in at price that you may consider irrational, but Stepn never promised you would get your money back, let alone make a profit, and therefore it doesn't have the exponential progression of a Ponzi scheme. One can argue that this is a distinction without a moral difference, and personally I would agree, but it matters immensely if one is trying to analyze the future of cryptocurrencies. Schemes as transparently unstable as Stepn (which gives you coins for exercise and then tries to claim those coins have value through some vigorous hand-waving) are nearly as certain as Ponzi schemes to eventually collapse. But it's also possible to create a stable business around allowing large numbers of people to regularly lose money to small numbers of sophisticated players who are collecting all of the winnings. It's called a poker room at a casino, and no one thinks poker rooms are Ponzi schemes or are doomed to collapse, even though nearly everyone who plays poker will lose money. This is the part of the story that I think Faux largely missed, and which Michael Lewis highlights in Going Infinite. FTX was a legitimate business that made money (a lot of money) off of trading fees, in much the same way that a casino makes money off of poker rooms. Lots of people want to bet on cryptocurrencies, similar to how lots of people want to play poker. Some of those people will win; most of those people will lose. The casino doesn't care. Its profit comes from taking a little bit of each pot, regardless of who wins. Bankman-Fried also speculated with customer funds, and therefore FTX collapsed, but there is no inherent reason why the core exchange business cannot be stable if people continue to want to speculate in cryptocurrencies. Perhaps people will get tired of this method of gambling, but poker has been going strong for 200 years. It's also important to note that although trading fees are the most obvious way to be a profitable cryptocurrency casino, they're not the only way. Wall Street firms specialize in finding creative ways to take a cut of every financial transaction, and many of those methods are more sophisticated than fees. They are so good at this that buying and selling stock through trading apps like Robinhood is free. The money to run the brokerage platform comes from companies that are delighted to pay for the opportunity to handle stock trades by day traders with a phone app. This is not, as some conspiracy theories would have you believe, due to some sort of fraudulent price manipulation. It is because the average person with a Robinhood phone app is sufficiently unsophisticated that companies that have invested in complex financial modeling will make a steady profit taking the other side of their trades, mostly because of the spread (the difference between offered buy and sell prices). Faux is so caught up in looking for Ponzi schemes and fraud that I think he misses this aspect of cryptocurrency's transformation. Wall Street trading firms aren't piling into cryptocurrency because they want to do securities fraud. They're entering this market because there seems to be persistent demand for this form of gambling, cryptocurrency markets reward complex financial engineering, and running a legal casino is a profitable business model. Michael Lewis appears as a character in this book, and Faux portrays him quite negatively. The root of this animosity appears to stem from a cryptocurrency conference in the Bahamas that Faux attended. Lewis interviewed Bankman-Fried on stage, and, from Faux's account, his questions were fawning and he praised cryptocurrencies in ways that Faux is certain he knew were untrue. From that point on, Faux treats Lewis as an apologist for the cryptocurrency industry and for Sam Bankman-Fried specifically. I think this is a legitimate criticism of Lewis's methods of getting close to the people he wants to write about, but I think Faux also makes the common mistake of assuming Lewis is a muckraking reporter like himself. This has never been what Lewis is interested in. He writes about people he finds interesting and that he thinks a reader will also find interesting. One can legitimately accuse him of being credulous, but that's partly because he's not even trying to do the same thing Faux is doing. He's not trying to judge; he's trying to understand. This shows when it comes to the parts of this book about Sam Bankman-Fried. Faux's default assumption is that everyone involved in cryptocurrency is knowingly doing fraud, and a lot of his research is looking for evidence to support the conclusion he had already reached. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that approach: Faux is largely, although not entirely, correct, and this type of hostile journalism is incredibly valuable for society at large. Upton Sinclair didn't start writing The Jungle with an open mind about the meat-packing industry. But where Faux and Lewis disagree on Bankman-Fried's motivations and intentions, I think Lewis has the much stronger argument. Faux's position is that Bankman-Fried always intended to steal people's money through fraud, perhaps to fund his effective altruism donations, and his protestations that he made mistakes and misplaced funds are obvious lies. This is an appealing narrative if one is looking for a simple villain, but Faux's evidence in support of this is weak. He mostly argues through stereotype: Bankman-Fried was a physics major and a Jane Street trader and therefore could not possibly be the type of person to misplace large amounts of money or miscalculate risk. If he wants to understand how that could be possible, he could read Going Infinite? I find it completely credible that someone with what appears to be uncontrolled, severe ADHD could be adept at trading and calculating probabilities and yet also misplace millions of dollars of assets because he wasn't thinking about them and therefore they stopped existing. Lewis made a lot of people angry by being somewhat sympathetic to someone few people wanted to be sympathetic towards, but Faux (and many others) are also misrepresenting his position. Lewis agrees that Bankman-Fried intentionally intermingled customer funds with his hedge fund and agrees that he lied about doing this. His only contention is that Bankman-Fried didn't do this to steal the money; instead, he invested customer money in risky bets that he thought would pay off. In support of this, Lewis made a prediction that was widely scoffed at, namely that much less of FTX's money was missing than was claimed, and that likely most or all of it would be found. And, well, Lewis was basically correct? The FTX bankruptcy is now expected to recover considerably more than the amount of money owed to creditors. Faux argues that this is only because the bankruptcy clawed back assets and cryptocurrencies have gone up considerably since the FTX bankruptcy, and therefore that the lost money was just replaced by unexpected windfall profits on other investments, but I don't think this point is as strong as he thinks it is. Bankman-Fried lost money on some of what he did with customer funds, made money on other things, and if he'd been able to freeze withdrawals for the year that the bankruptcy froze them, it does appear most of the money would have been recoverable. This does not make what he did legal or morally right, but no one is arguing that, only that he didn't intentionally steal money for his own personal gain or for effective altruism donations. And on that point, I don't think Faux is giving Lewis's argument enough credit. I have a lot of complaints about this book because I know way too much about this topic than anyone should probably know. I think Faux missed the plot in a couple of places, and I wish someone would write a book about where cryptocurrency markets are currently going. (Matt Levine's Money Stuff newsletter is quite good, but it's about all sorts of things other than cryptocurrency and isn't designed to tell a coherent story.) But if you know less about cryptocurrency and just want to hear the details of the run-up to the 2022 bubble, this is a great book for that. Faux is writing for people who are already skeptical and is not going to convince people who are cryptocurrency true believers, but that's fine. The details are largely correct (and extensively footnoted) and will satisfy most people's curiosity. Lewis's Going Infinite is a better book, though. It's not the same type of book at all, and it will not give you the broader overview of the cryptocurrency world. But if you're curious about what was going through the head of someone at the center of all of this chaos, I think Lewis's analysis is much stronger than Faux's. I'm happy I read both books. Rating: 8 out of 10

Review: Beyond the Fringe, by Miles Cameron

Series:	Arcana Imperii #1.5
Publisher:	Gollancz
Copyright:	2023
ISBN:	1-3996-1537-8
Format:	Kindle
Pages:	173

Beyond the Fringe is a military science fiction short story collection set in the same universe as Artifact Space. It is intended as a bridge between that novel and its sequel, Deep Black. Originally I picked this up for exactly the reason it was published: I was eagerly awaiting Deep Black and thought I'd pass the time with some filler short fiction. Then, somewhat predictably, I didn't get around to reading it until after Deep Black was already out. I still read this collection first, partly because I'm stubborn about reading things in publication order but mostly to remind myself of what was going on in Artifact Space before jumping into the sequel. My stubbornness was satisfied. My memory was not; there's little to no background information here, and I had to refresh my memory of the previous book anyway to figure out the connections between these stories and the novel. My own poor decisions aside, these stories are... fine, I guess? They're competent military SF short fiction, mostly more explicitly military than Artifact Space. All of them were reasonably engaging. None of them were that memorable or would have gotten me to read the series on their own. They're series filler, in other words, offering a bit of setup for the next novel but not much in the way of memorable writing or plot. If you really want more in this universe, this exists, but my guess (not having read Deep Black) is that it's entirely skippable. "Getting Even": A DHC paratrooper lands on New Shenzen, a planet that New Texas is trying to absorb into the empire it is attempting to build. He gets captured by one group of irregulars and then runs into another force with an odd way of counting battle objectives. I think this exists because Cameron wanted to tell a version of a World War II story he'd heard, but it's basically a vignette about a weird military unit with no real conclusion, and I am at a loss as to the point of the story. There isn't even much in the way of world-building. I'm probably missing something, but I thought it was a waste of time. (4) "Partners": The DHC send a planetary exobiologist to New Texas as a negotiator. New Texas is aggressively, abusively capitalist and is breaking DHC regulations on fair treatment of labor. Why send a planetary exobiologist is unclear (although probably ties into the theme of this collection that the reader slowly pieces together); maybe it's because he's originally from New Texas, but more likely it's because of his partner. Regardless, the New Texas government are exploitative assholes with delusions of grandeur, so the negotiations don't go very smoothly. This was my favorite story of the collection just because I enjoy people returning rudeness and arrogance to sender, but like a lot of stories in this collection it doesn't have much of an ending. I suspect it's mostly setup for Deep Black. (7) "Dead Reckoning": This is the direct fallout of the previous story and probably has the least characterization of this collection. It covers a few hours of a merchant ship having to make some fast decisions in a changing political situation. The story is framed around a veteran spacer and his new apprentice, although even that frame is mostly dropped once the action starts. It was suspenseful and enjoyable enough while I was reading it, but it's the sort of story that you forget entirely after it's over. (6) "Trade Craft": Back on a planet for this story, which follows an intelligence agent on a world near but not inside New Texas's area of influence. I thought this was one of the better stories of the collection even though it's mostly action. There are some good snippets of characterization, an interesting mix of characters, and some well-written tense scenes. Unfortunately, I did not enjoy the ending for reasons that would be spoilers. Otherwise, this was good but forgettable. (6) "One Hour": This is the first story with a protagonist outside of the DHC and its associates. It instead follows a PTX officer (PTX is a competing civilization that features in Artifact Space) who has suspicions about what his captain is planning and recruits his superior officer to help him do something about it. This is probably the best story in the collection, although I personally enjoyed "Partners" a smidgen more. Shunfu, the first astrogator who is recruited by the protagonist, is a thoroughly enjoyable character, and the story is tense and exciting all the way through. For series readers, it also adds some depth to events in Artifact Space (if the reader remembers them), and I suspect will lead directly into Deep Black. (7) "The Gifts of the Magi": A kid and his mother, struggling asteroid miners with ancient and malfunctioning equipment, stumble across a DHC ship lurking in the New Texas system for a secret mission. This is a stroke of luck for the miners, since the DHC is happy to treat the serious medical problems of the mother without charging unaffordable fees the way that the hyper-capitalist New Texas doctors would. It also gives the reader a view into DHC's covert monitoring of the activities of New Texas that all the stories in this collection have traced. As you can tell from the title, this is a Christmas story. The crew of the DHC ship is getting ready to celebrate Alliday, which they claim rolls all of the winter holidays into one. Just like every other effort to do this, no, it does not, it just subsumes them all into Christmas with some lip service to other related holidays. I am begging people to realize that other religions often do not have major holidays in December, and therefore you cannot include everyone by just declaring December to be religious holiday time and thinking that will cover it. There is the bones of an interesting story here. The covert mission setup has potential, the kid and his mother are charming if cliched, there's a bit of world-building around xenoglas (the magical alien material at the center of the larger series plot), and there's a lot of foreshadowing for Deep Black. Unfortunately, this is too obviously a side story and a setup story: none of this goes anywhere satisfying, and along the way the reader has to endure endless rather gratuitous Christmas references, such as the captain working on a Nutcracker ballet performance for the ship talent show. This isn't bad, exactly, but it rubbed me the wrong way. If you love Christmas stories, you may find it more agreeable. (5) Rating: 6 out of 10

Welcome to the November 2024 report from the Reproducible Builds project! Our monthly reports outline what we ve been up to over the past month and highlight items of news from elsewhere in the world of software supply-chain security where relevant. As ever, if you are interested in contributing to the Reproducible Builds project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. Table of contents:

1. Reproducible Builds mourns the passing of Lunar
2. Introducing reproduce.debian.net
3. New landing page design
4. SBOMs for Python packages
5. Debian updates
6. Reproducible builds by default in Maven 4
7. PyPI now supports digital attestations
8. Dependency Challenges in OSS Package Registries
9. Zig programming language demonstrated reproducible
10. Website updates
11. Upstream patches
12. Misc development news
13. Reproducibility testing framework

---

Reproducible Builds mourns the passing of Lunar The Reproducible Builds community sadly announced it has lost its founding member, Lunar. J r my Bobbio aka Lunar passed away on Friday November 8th in palliative care in Rennes, France. Lunar was instrumental in starting the Reproducible Builds project in 2013 as a loose initiative within the Debian project. He was the author of our earliest status reports and many of our key tools in use today are based on his design. Lunar s creativity, insight and kindness were often noted. You can view our full tribute elsewhere on our website. He will be greatly missed.

Introducing reproduce.debian.net In happier news, this month saw the introduction of reproduce.debian.net. Announced at the recent Debian MiniDebConf in Toulouse, reproduce.debian.net is an instance of rebuilderd operated by the Reproducible Builds project. rebuilderd is our server designed monitor the official package repositories of Linux distributions and attempts to reproduce the observed results there. In November, reproduce.debian.net began rebuilding Debian unstable on the amd64 architecture, but throughout the MiniDebConf, it had attempted to rebuild 66% of the official archive. From this, it could be determined that it is currently possible to bit-for-bit reproduce and corroborate approximately 78% of the actual binaries distributed by Debian that is, using the .buildinfo files hosted by Debian itself. reproduce.debian.net also contains instructions how to setup one s own rebuilderd instance, and we very much invite everyone with a machine to spare to setup their own version and to share the results. Whilst rebuilderd is still in development, it has been used to reproduce Arch Linux since 2019. We are especially looking for installations targeting Debian architectures other than i386 and amd64.

New landing page design As part of a very productive partnership with the Sovereign Tech Fund and Neighbourhoodie, we are pleased to unveil our new homepage/landing page. We are very happy with our collaboration with both STF and Neighbourhoodie (including many changes not directly related to the website), and look forward to working with them in the future.

SBOMs for Python packages The Python Software Foundation has announced a new cross-functional project for SBOMs and Python packages . Seth Michael Larson writes that the project is specifically looking to solve these issues :

• Enable Python users that require SBOM documents (likely due to regulations like CRA or SSDF) to self-serve using existing SBOM generation tools.
• Solve the phantom dependency problem, where non-Python software is bundled in Python packages but not recorded in any metadata. This makes the job of software composition analysis (SCA) tools difficult or impossible.
• Make the adoption work by relevant projects such as build backends, auditwheel-esque tools, as minimal as possible. Empower users who are interested in having better SBOM data for the Python projects they are using to be able to contribute engineering time towards that goal.

A GitHub repository for the initiative is available, and there are a number of queries, comments and remarks on Seth s Discourse forum post.

Debian updates There was significant development within Debian this month. Firstly, at the recent MiniDebConf in Toulouse, France, Holger Levsen gave a Debian-specific talk on rebuilding packages distributed from ftp.debian.org that is to say, how to reproduce the results from the official Debian build servers: Holger described the talk as follows:

For more than ten years, the Reproducible Builds project has worked towards reproducible builds of many projects, and for ten years now we have build Debian packages twice with maximal variations applied to see if they can be build reproducible still. Since about a month, we ve also been rebuilding trying to exactly match the builds being distributed via ftp.debian.org. This talk will describe the setup and the lessons learned so far, and why the results currently are what they are (spoiler: they are less than 30% reproducible), and what we can do to fix that.

The Debian Project Leader, Andreas Tille, was present at the talk and remarked later in his Bits from the DPL update that:

It might be unfair to single out a specific talk from Toulouse, but I d like to highlight the one on reproducible builds. Beyond its technical focus, the talk also addressed the recent loss of Lunar, whom we mourn deeply. It served as a tribute to Lunar s contributions and legacy. Personally, I ve encountered packages maintained by Lunar and bugs he had filed. I believe that taking over his packages and addressing the bugs he reported is a meaningful way to honor his memory and acknowledge the value of his work.

Holger s slides and video in .webm format are available.
Next, rebuilderd is the server to monitor package repositories of Linux distributions and attempt to reproduce the observed results. This month, version 0.21.0 released, most notably with improved support for binNMUs by Jochen Sprickerhof and updating the rebuilderd-debian.sh integration to the latest debrebuild version by Holger Levsen. There has also been significant work to get the rebuilderd package into the Debian archive, in particular, both rust-rebuilderd-common version 0.20.0-1 and rust-rust-lzma version 0.6.0-1 were packaged by kpcyrd and uploaded by Holger Levsen. Related to this, Holger Levsen submitted three additional issues against rebuilderd as well:

• rebuildctl should be more verbose when encountering issues. [ ]
• Please add an option to used randomised queues. [ ]
• Scheduling and re-scheduling multiple packages at once. [ ]

and lastly, Jochen Sprickerhof submitted one an issue requested that rebuilderd downloads the source package in addition to the .buildinfo file [ ] and kpcyrd also submitted and fixed an issue surrounding dependencies and clarifying the license [ ]
Separate to this, back in 2018, Chris Lamb filed a bug report against the sphinx-gallery package as it generates unreproducible content in various ways. This month, however, Dmitry Shachnev finally closed the bug, listing the multiple sub-issues that were part of the problem and how they were resolved.
Elsewhere, Roland Clobus posted to our mailing list this month, asking for input on a bug in Debian s ca-certificates-java package. The issue is that the Java key management tools embed timestamps in its output, and this output ends up in the /etc/ssl/certs/java/cacerts file on the generated ISO images. A discussion resulted from Roland s post suggesting some short- and medium-term solutions to the problem.
Holger Levsen uploaded some packages with reproducibility-related changes:

• devscripts versions 2.24.3, 2.24.4 and 2.24.5 were uploaded, including several fixes for the debrebuild and debootsnap and scripts.
• cdbs version 0.4.167 uploaded in order to drop dh_buildinfo support, as dpkg has generated .buildinfo files since 2016 and the results of dh_buildinfo are typically unreproducible. Related to this a mass bug filing by Helmut Grohne intended to remove the obsolete and deprecated dh-buildinfo package from the archive. At the time of writing, this still affects 311 packages in Debian unstable.

Lastly, 12 reviews of Debian packages were added, 5 were updated and 21 were removed this month adding to our knowledge about identified issues in Debian.

Reproducible builds by default in Maven 4 On our mailing list this month, Herv Boutemy reported the latest release of Maven (4.0.0-beta-5) has reproducible builds enabled by default. In his mailing list post, Herv mentions that this story started during our Reproducible Builds summit in Hamburg , where he created the upstream issue that builds on a multi-year effort to have Maven builds configured for reproducibility.

PyPI now supports digital attestations Elsewhere in the Python ecosystem and as reported on LWN and elsewhere, the Python Package Index (PyPI) has announced that it has finalised support for PEP 740 ( Index support for digital attestations ). Trail of Bits, who performed much of the development work, has an in-depth blog post about the work and its adoption, as well as what is left undone:

One thing is notably missing from all of this work: downstream verification. [ ] This isn t an acceptable end state (cryptographic attestations have defensive properties only insofar as they re actually verified), so we re looking into ways to bring verification to individual installing clients. In particular, we re currently working on a plugin architecture for pip that will enable users to load verification logic directly into their pip install flows.

There was an in-depth discussion on LWN s announcement page, as well as on Hacker News.

Dependency Challenges in OSS Package Registries At BENEVOL, the Belgium-Netherlands Software Evolution workshop in Namur, Belgium, Tom Mens and Alexandre Decan presented their paper, An Overview and Catalogue of Dependency Challenges in Open Source Software Package Registries . The abstract of their paper is as follows:

While open-source software has enabled significant levels of reuse to speed up software development, it has also given rise to the dreadful dependency hell that all software practitioners face on a regular basis. This article provides a catalogue of dependency-related challenges that come with relying on OSS packages or libraries. The catalogue is based on the scientific literature on empirical research that has been conducted to understand, quantify and overcome these challenges. [ ]

A PDF of the paper is available online.

Zig programming language demonstrated reproducible Motiejus Jak ty posted an interesting and practical blog post on his successful attempt to reproduce the Zig programming language without using the pre-compiled binaries checked into the repository, and despite the circular dependency inherent in its bootstrapping process. As a summary, Motiejus concludes that:

I can now confidently say (and you can also check, you don t need to trust me) that there is nothing hiding in zig1.wasm [the checked-in binary] that hasn t been checked-in as a source file.

The full post is full of practical details, and includes a few open questions.

Website updates Notwithstanding the significant change to the landing page (screenshot above), there were an enormous number of changes made to our website this month. This included:

• Alex Feyerke and Mariano Gim nez:
  • Dramatically overhaul the website s landing page with new benefit cards tailored to the expected visitors to our website and a reworking of the visual hierarchy and design. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
• Bernhard M. Wiedemann:
  • Update the System images page to document the e2fsprogs approach. [ ]
• Chris Lamb:
  • Cachebust every CSS file per-release. [ ]
  • Replace some inline markdown with HTML. [ ]
  • Use spaces on the Publications page. [ ]
  • Add a news article about the passing of Lunar. [ ][ ][ ][ ]
  • Add a black memorial band to the top of the page. [ ]
• FC (Fay) Stegerman:
  • Replace more inline markdown with HTML on the Success stories page. [ ]
  • Add some links, fix some other links and correct some spelling errors on the Tools page. [ ]
• Holger Levsen:
  • Add a historical presentation ( Reproducible builds everywhere eg. in Debian, OpenWrt and LEDE ) from October 2016. [ ]
  • Add jochensp and Oejet to the list of known contributors. [ ][ ]
• Julia Kr ger:
  • Add a new Stripping of unreproducible information page to the documentation. [ ]
• Ninette Adhikari & hulkoba:
  • Add/rework the list of success stories into a new page that clearly shows milestones in Reproducible Builds. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
• Philip Rinn:
  • Import 47 historical weekly reports. [ ]
• hulkoba:
  • Add alt text to almost all images (!). [ ][ ]
  • Fix a number of links on the Talks . [ ][ ]
  • Avoid so-called ghost buttons by not using <button> elements as links, as the affordance of a <button> implies an action with (potentially) a side effect. [ ][ ]
  • Center the sponsor logos on the homepage. [ ]
  • Move publications and generate them instead from a data.yml file with an improved layout. [ ][ ]
  • Make a large number of small but impactful stylisting changes. [ ][ ][ ][ ]
  • Expand the Tools to include a number of missing tools, fix some styling issues and fix a number of stale/broken links. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]

Upstream patches The Reproducible Builds project detects, dissects and attempts to fix as many currently-unreproducible packages as possible. We endeavour to send all of our patches upstream where appropriate. This month, we wrote a large number of such patches, including:

• Bernhard M. Wiedemann:
  • clisp (fix contributed by Bruno Haible)
  • conky (date-related issue)
  • emacs-auctex (date-related gzip issue)
  • javadoc (filesystem ordering issue)
  • jboss-websocket-1.0-api (embeds uname -r)
  • lcms2 (CPU issue)
  • LiE (ASLR-related issue)
  • make_ext4fs (toolchain-related issue for for VM images)
  • obs-build (issue when running builds with certain CPU types or core numbers)
  • perl-Time-modules (fails to build far in the future)
  • python-bson (fails to build far in the future)
  • python-exiv2 (fails to build far in the future)
  • python-moto (date-related gzip issue)
  • python-pyhanko-certvalidator (fails to build far in the future)
  • python-python-gvm (concurrency-related issue)
  • python310 (fails to build far in the future)
  • python313 (fails to build far in the future)
  • reproducible-faketools (toolchain for emacs)
  • shadowsocks-rust (date-related issue)
  • swipl (fails to build far in the future)
• Chris Lamb:
  • #1087330 filed against python-pydash.
  • #1087485 filed against fritzconnection.
  • #1087486 filed against tracy.
  • #1088238 filed against rust-broot.
  • #1088353 filed against python-aiovlc.
  • #1088742 filed against python-aiohomekit.
• James Addison:
  • #1088144 filed against cdbs.

Misc development news

• Bernhard M. Wiedemann published another report for the openSUSE distribution.
• Martin Abente Lahaye updated diffoscope to fix a crash when objdump is missing. [ ]
• On our mailing list, Jan-Benedict Glaw announced the publication of the fifth NetBSD Reproducibility Report

Reproducibility testing framework The Reproducible Builds project operates a comprehensive testing framework running primarily at tests.reproducible-builds.org in order to check packages and other artifacts for reproducibility. In November, a number of changes were made by Holger Levsen, including:

• reproduce.debian.net-related changes:
  • Create and introduce a new reproduce.debian.net service and subdomain [ ]
  • Make a large number of documentation changes relevant to rebuilderd. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
  • Explain a temporary workaround for a specific issue in rebuilderd. [ ]
  • Setup another rebuilderd instance on the o4 node and update installation documentation to match. [ ][ ]
  • Make a number of helpful/cosmetic changes to the interface, such as clarifying terms and adding links. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
  • Deploy configuration to the /opt and /var directories. [ ][ ]
  • Add an infancy (or alpha ) disclaimer. [ ][ ]
  • Add more notes to the temporary rebuilderd documentation. [ ]
  • Commit an nginx configuration file for reproduce.debian.net s Stats page. [ ]
  • Commit a rebuilder-worker.conf configuration for the o5 node. [ ]
• Debian-related changes:
  • Grant jspricke and jochensp access to the o5 node. [ ][ ]
  • Build the qemu package with the nocheck build flag. [ ]
• Misc changes:
  • Adapt the update_jdn.sh script for new Debian trixie systems. [ ]
  • Stop installing the PostgreSQL database engine on the o4 and o5 nodes. [ ]
  • Prevent accidental reboots of the o4 node because of a long-running job owned by josch. [ ][ ]

In addition, Mattia Rizzolo addressed a number of issues with reproduce.debian.net [ ][ ][ ][ ]. And lastly, both Holger Levsen [ ][ ][ ][ ] and Vagrant Cascadian [ ][ ][ ][ ] performed node maintenance.
If you are interested in contributing to the Reproducible Builds project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. However, you can get in touch with us via:

• IRC: #reproducible-builds on irc.oftc.net.
• Mastodon: @reproducible_builds@fosstodon.org
• Mailing list: rb-general@lists.reproducible-builds.org
• Twitter: @ReproBuilds

Centralisation and Corporations An advantage of a medium to large company is that it permits specialisation. For example I m currently working in the IT department of a medium sized company and because we have standardised hardware (Dell Latitude and Precision laptops, Dell Precision Tower workstations, and Dell PowerEdge servers) and I am involved in fixing all Linux compatibility issues on that I can fix most problems in a small fraction of the time that I would take to fix on a random computer. There is scope for a lot of debate about the extent to which companies should standardise and centralise things. But for computer problems which can escalate quickly from minor to serious if not approached in the correct manner it s clear that a good deal of centralisation is appropriate. For people doing technical computer work such as programming there s a large portion of the employees who are computer hobbyists who like to fiddle with computers. But if the support system is run well even they will appreciate having computers just work most of the time and for a large portion of the failures having someone immediately recognise the problem, like the issues with NVidia drivers that I have documented so that first line support can implement workarounds without the need for a lengthy investigation. A big problem with email in the modern Internet is the prevalence of Phishing scams. The current corporate approach to this is to send out test Phishing email to people and then force computer security training on everyone who clicks on them. One problem with this is that attackers only need to fool one person on one occasion and when you have hundreds of people doing something on rare occasions that s not part of their core work they will periodically get it wrong. When every test Phishing run finds several people who need extra training it seems obvious to me that this isn t a solution that s working well. I will concede that the majority of people who click on the test Phishing email would probably realise their mistake if asked to enter the password for the corporate email system, but I think it s still clear that this isn t a great solution. Let s imagine for the sake of discussion that everyone in a company was 100% accurate at identifying Phishing email and other scam email, if that was the case would the problem be solved? I believe that even in that hypothetical case it would not be a solved problem due to the wasted time and concentration. People can spend minutes determining if a single email is legitimate. On many occasions I have had relatives and clients forward me email because they are unsure if it s valid, it s great that they seek expert advice when they are unsure about things but it would be better if they didn t have to go to that effort. What we ideally want to do is centralise the anti-Phishing and anti-spam work to a small group of people who are actually good at it and who can recognise patterns by seeing larger quantities of spam. When a spam or Phishing message is sent to 600 people in a company you don t want 600 people to individually consider it, you want one person to recognise it and delete/block all 600. If 600 people each spend one minute considering the matter then that s 10 work hours wasted! The Rationale for Human Filtering For personal email human filtering usually isn t viable because people want privacy. But corporate email isn t private, it s expected that the company can read it under certain circumstances (in most jurisdictions) and having email open in public areas of the office where colleagues might see it is expected. You can visit gmail.com on your lunch break to read personal email but every company policy (and common sense) says to not have actually private correspondence on company systems. The amount of time spent by reception staff in sorting out such email would be less than that taken by individuals. When someone sends a spam to everyone in the company instead of 500 people each spending a couple of minutes working out whether it s legit you have one person who s good at recognising spam (because it s their job) who clicks on a remove mail from this sender from all mailboxes button and 500 messages are deleted and the sender is blocked. Delaying email would be a concern. It s standard practice for CEOs (and C*Os at larger companies) to have a PA receive their email and forward the ones that need their attention. So human vetting of email can work without unreasonable delays. If we had someone checking all email for the entire company probably email to the senior people would never get noticeably delayed and while people like me would get their mail delayed on occasion people doing technical work generally don t have notifications turned on for email because it s a distraction and a fast response isn t needed. There are a few senders where fast response is required, which is mostly corporations sending a click this link within 10 minutes to confirm your password change email. Setting up rules for all such senders that are relevant to work wouldn t be difficult to do. How to Solve This Spam and Phishing became serious problems over 20 years ago and we have had 20 years of evolution of email filtering which still hasn t solved the problem. The vast majority of email addresses in use are run by major managed service providers and they haven t managed to filter out spam/phishing mail effectively so I think we should assume that it s not going to be solved by filtering. There is talk about what AI technology might do for filtering spam/phishing but that same technology can product better crafted hostile email to avoid filters. An additional complication for corporate email filtering is that some criteria that are used to filter personal email don t apply to corporate mail. If someone sends email to me personally about millions of dollars then it s obviously not legit. If someone sends email to a company then it could be legit. Companies routinely have people emailing potential clients about how their products can save millions of dollars and make purchases over a million dollars. This is not a problem that s impossible to solve, it s just an extra difficulty that reduces the efficiency of filters. It seems to me that the best solution to the problem involves having all mail filtered by a human. A company could configure their mail server to not accept direct external mail for any employee s address. Then people could email files to colleagues etc without any restriction but spam and phishing wouldn t be a problem. The issue is how to manage inbound mail. One possibility is to have addresses of the form it+russell.coker@example.com (for me as an employee in the IT department) and you would have a team of people who would read those mailboxes and forward mail to the right people if it seemed legit. Having addresses like it+russell.coker means that all mail to the IT department would be received into folders of the same account and they could be filtered by someone with suitable security level and not require any special configuration of the mail server. So the person who read the is mailbox would have a folder named russell.coker receiving mail addressed to me. The system could be configured to automate the processing of mail from known good addresses (and even domains), so they could just put in a rule saying that when Dell sends DMARC authenticated mail to is+$USER it gets immediately directed to $USER. This is the sort of thing that can be automated in the email client (mail filtering is becoming a common feature in MUAs). For a FOSS implementation of such things the server side of it (including extracting account data from a directory to determine which department a user is in) would be about a day s work and then an option would be to modify a webmail program to have extra functionality for approving senders and sending change requests to the server to automatically direct future mail from the same sender. As an aside I have previously worked on a project that had a modified version of the Horde webmail system to do this sort of thing for challenge-response email and adding certain automated messages to the allow-list. The Change One of the first things to do is configuring the system to add every recipient of an outbound message to the allow list for receiving a reply. Having a script go through the sent-mail folders of all accounts and adding the recipients to the allow lists would be easy and catch the common cases. But even with processing the sent mail folders going from a working system without such things to a system like this will take some time for the initial work of adding addresses to the allow lists, particularly for domain wide additions of all the sites that send password confirmation messages. You would need rules to direct inbound mail to the old addresses to the new style and then address a huge amount of mail that needs to be categorised. If you have 600 employees and the average amount of time taken on the first day is 10 minutes per user then that s 100 hours of work, 12 work days. If you had everyone from the IT department, reception, and executive assistants working on it that would be viable. After about a week there wouldn t be much work involved in maintaining it. Then after that it would be a net win for the company. The Benefits If the average employee spends one minute a day dealing with spam and phishing email then with 600 employees that s 10 hours of wasted time per day. Effectively wasting one employee s work! I m sure that s the low end of the range, 5 minutes average per day doesn t seem unreasonable especially when people are unsure about phishing email and send it to Slack so multiple employees spend time analysing it. So you could have 5 employees being wasted by hostile email and avoiding that would take a fraction of the time of a few people adding up to less than an hour of total work per day. Then there s the training time for phishing mail. Instead of having every employee spend half an hour doing email security training every few months (that s 300 hours or 7.5 working weeks every time you do it) you just train the few experts. In addition to saving time there are significant security benefits to having experts deal with possibly hostile email. Someone who deals with a lot of phishing email is much less likely to be tricked. Will They Do It? They probably won t do it any time soon. I don t think it s expensive enough for companies yet. Maybe government agencies already have equivalent measures in place, but for regular corporations it s probably regarded as too difficult to change anything and the costs aren t obvious. I have been unsuccessful in suggesting that managers spend slightly more on computer hardware to save significant amounts of worker time for 30 years.

November 2024 will be known as the time when killing peanut, a pet squirrel, by the New York State DEC swung the US presidential elections and shaped history forever. The hundreds of millions of dollars spent on each side, the tireless campaigning by the candidates, the celebrity endorsements ... all made for an open race for months. Investments evened each other out. But an OnlyFans producer showing people an overreaching, bureaucracy driven State raiding his home to confiscate a pet squirrel and kill it ... swung enough voters to decide the elections. That is what we need to understand in times of instant worldwide publication and a mostly attention driven economy: Human fates, elections, economic cycles and wars can be decided by people killing squirrels. RIP, peanut. P.S.: Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. (DJT) stock is up 30% pre-market.

In September of this year, I visited Kenya to attend the State of the Map conference. I spent six nights in the capital Nairobi, two nights in Mombasa, and one night on a train. I was very happy with the visa process being smooth and quick. Furthermore, I stayed at the Nairobi Transit Hotel with other attendees, with Ibtehal from Bangladesh as my roommate. One of the memorable moments was the time I spent at a local coffee shop nearby. We used to go there at midnight, despite the grating in the shops suggesting such adventures were unsafe. Fortunately, nothing bad happened, and we were rewarded with a fun time with the locals.

The coffee shop Ibtehal and me used to visit during the midnight

Grating at a chemist shop in Mombasa, Kenya

The country lies on the equator, which might give the impression of extremely hot temperatures. However, Nairobi was on the cooler side (10 25 degrees Celsius), and I found myself needing a hoodie, which I bought the next day. It also served as a nice souvenir, as it had an outline of the African map printed on it. I also bought a Safaricom SIM card for 100 shillings and recharged it with 1000 shillings for 8 GB internet with 5G speeds and 400 minutes talk time.

A visit to Nairobi s Historic Cricket Ground On this trip, I got a unique souvenir that can t be purchased from the market a cricket jersey worn in an ODI match by a player. The story goes as follows: I was roaming around the market with my friend Benson from Nairobi to buy a Kenyan cricket jersey for myself, but we couldn t find any. So, Benson had the idea of visiting the Nairobi Gymkhana Club, which used to be Kenya s main cricket ground. It has hosted some historic matches, including the 2003 World Cup match in which Kenya beat the mighty Sri Lankans and the record for the fastest ODI century by Shahid Afridi in just 37 balls in 1996. Although entry to the club was exclusively for members, I was warmly welcomed by the staff. Upon reaching the cricket ground, I met some Indian players who played in Kenyan leagues, as well as Lucas Oluoch and Dominic Wesonga, who have represented Kenya in ODIs. When I expressed interest in getting a jersey, Dominic agreed to send me pictures of his jersey. I liked his jersey and collected it from him. I gave him 2000 shillings, an amount suggested by those Indian players.

Me with players at the Nairobi Gymkhana Club

Cricket pitch at the Nairobi Gymkhana Club

A view of the cricket ground inside the Nairobi Gymkhana Club

Scoreboard at the Nairobi Gymkhana cricket ground

Giraffe Center in Nairobi Kenya is known for its safaris and has no shortage of national parks. In fact, Nairobi is the only capital in the world with a national park. I decided not to visit one, as most of them were expensive and offered multi-day tours, and I didn t want to spend that much time in the wildlife. Instead, I went to the Giraffe Center in Nairobi with Pragya and Rabina. The ticket cost 1500 Kenyan shillings (1000 Indian rupees). In Kenya, matatus - shared vans, usually decorated with portraits of famous people and play rap songs - are the most popular means of public transport. Reaching the Giraffe Center from our hotel required taking five matatus, which cost a total of 150 shillings, and a 2 km walk. The journey back was 90 shillings, suggesting that we didn t find the most efficient route to get there. At the Giraffe Center, we fed giraffes and took photos.

A matatu with a Notorious BIG portrait.

Inside the Giraffe Center

Train ride from Nairobi to Mombasa I took a train from Nairobi to Mombasa. The train is known as the SGR Train, where SGR refers to Standard Gauge Railway. The journey was around 500 km. M-Pesa was the only way to make payment for pre-booking the train ticket, and I didn t have an M-Pesa account. Pragya s friend Mary helped facilitate the payment. I booked a second-class ticket, which cost 1500 shillings (1000 Indian rupees). The train was scheduled to depart from Nairobi at 08:00 hours in the morning and arrive in Mombasa at 14:00 hours. The security check at the station required scanning our bags and having them sniffed by sniffer dogs. I also fell victim to a scam by a security official who offered to help me get my ticket printed, only to later ask me to get him some coffee, which I politely declined. Before boarding the train, I was treated to some stunning views at the Nairobi Terminus station. It was a seating train, but I wished it were a sleeper train, as I was sleep-deprived. The train was neat and clean, with good toilets. The train reached Mombasa on time at around 14:00 hours.

SGR train at Nairobi Terminus.

Interior of the SGR train

Arrival in Mombasa

Mombasa Terminus station.

Mombasa was a bit hotter than Nairobi, with temperatures reaching around 30 degrees Celsius. However, that s not too hot for me, as I am used to higher temperatures in India. I had booked a hostel in the Old Town and was searching for a hitchhike from the Mombasa Terminus station. After trying for more than half an hour, I took a matatu that dropped me 3 km from my hostel for 200 shillings (140 Indian rupees). I tried to hitchhike again but couldn t find a ride. I think I know why I couldn t get a ride in both the cases. In the first case, the Mombasa Terminus was in an isolated place, so most of the vehicles were taxis or matatus while any noncommercial cars were there to pick up friends and family. If the station were in the middle of the city, there would be many more car/truck drivers passing by, thus increasing my possibilities of getting a ride. In the second case, my hostel was at the end of the city, and nobody was going towards that side. In fact, many drivers told me they would love to give me a ride, but they were going in some other direction. Finally, I took a tuktuk for 70 shillings to reach my hostel, Tulia Backpackers. It was 11 USD (1400 shillings) for one night. The balcony gave a nice view of the Indian Ocean. The rooms had fans, but there was no air conditioning. Each bed also had mosquito nets. The place was walking distance of the famous Fort Jesus. Mombasa has had more Islamic influence compared to Nairobi and also has many Hindu temples.

The balcony at Tulia Backpackers Hostel had a nice view of the ocean.

A room inside the hostel with fans and mosquito nets on the beds

Visiting White Sandy Beaches and Getting a Hitchhike Visiting Nyali beach marked my first time ever at a white sand beach. It was like 10 km from the hostel. The next day, I visited Diani Beach, which was 30 km from the hostel. Going to Diani Beach required crossing a river, for which there s a free ferry service every few minutes, followed by taking a matatu to Ukunda and then a tuk-tuk. The journey gave me a glimpse of the beautiful countryside of Kenya.

Nyali beach is a white sand beach

This is the ferry service for crossing the river.

During my return from Diani Beach to the hostel, I was successful in hitchhiking. However, it was only a 4 km ride and not sufficient to reach Ukunda, so I tried to get another ride. When a truck stopped for me, I asked for a ride to Ukunda. Later, I learned that they were going in the same direction as me, so I got off within walking distance from my hostel. The ride was around 30 km. I also learned the difference between a truck ride and a matatu or car ride. For instance, matatus and cars are much faster and cooler due to air conditioning, while trucks tend to be warmer because they lack it. Further, the truck was stopped at many checkpoints by the police for inspections as it carried goods, which is not the case with matatus. Anyways, it was a nice experience, and I am grateful for the ride. I had a nice conversation with the truck drivers about Indian movies and my experiences in Kenya.

Diani beach is a popular beach in Kenya. It is a white sand beach.

Selfie with truck drivers who gave me the free ride

Back to Nairobi I took the SGR train from Mombasa back to Nairobi. This time I took the night train, which departs at 22:00 hours, reaching Nairobi at around 04:00 in the morning. I could not sleep comfortably since the train only had seater seats. I had booked the Zarita Hotel in Nairobi and had already confirmed if they allowed early morning check-in. Usually, hotels have a fixed checkout time, say 11:00 in the morning, and you are not allowed to stay beyond that regardless of the time you checked in. But this hotel checked me in for 24 hours. Here, I paid in US dollars, and the cost was 12 USD.

Almost Got Stuck in Kenya Two days before my scheduled flight from Nairobi back to India, I heard the news that the airports in Kenya were closed due to the strikes. Rabina and Pragya had their flight back to Nepal canceled that day, which left them stuck in Nairobi for two additional days. I called Sahil in India and found out during the conversation that the strike was called off in the evening. It was a big relief for me, and I was fortunate to be able to fly back to India without any changes to my plans.

Newspapers at a stand in Kenya covering news on the airport closure

Experience with locals I had no problems communicating with Kenyans, as everyone I met knew English to an extent that could easily surpass that of big cities in India. Additionally, I learned a few words from Kenya s most popular local language, Swahili, such as Asante, meaning thank you, Jambo for hello, and Karibu for welcome. Knowing a few words in the local language went a long way. I am not sure what s up with haggling in Kenya. It wasn t easy to bring the price of souvenirs down. I bought a fridge magnet for 200 shillings, which was the quoted price. On the other hand, it was much easier to bargain with taxis/tuktuks/motorbikes. I stayed at three hotels/hostels in Kenya. None of them had air conditioners. Two of the places were in Nairobi, and they didn t even have fans in the rooms, while the one in Mombasa had only fans. All of them had good Wi-Fi, except Tulia where the internet overall was a bit shaky. My experience with the hotel staff was great. For instance, we requested that the Nairobi Transit Hotel cancel the included breakfast in order to reduce the room costs, but later realized that it was not a good idea. The hotel allowed us to revert and even offered one of our missing breakfasts during dinner. The staff at Tulia Backpackers in Mombasa facilitated the ticket payment for my train from Mombasa to Nairobi. One of the staff members also gave me a lift to the place where I could catch a matatu to Nyali Beach. They even added an extra tea bag to my tea when I requested it to be stronger.

Food At the Nairobi Transit Hotel, a Spanish omelet with tea was served for breakfast. I noticed that Spanish omelette appeared on the menus of many restaurants, suggesting that it is popular in Kenya. This was my first time having this dish. The milk tea in Kenya, referred to by locals as white tea, is lighter than Indian tea (they don t put a lot of tea leaves).

Spanish Omelette served in breakfast at Nairobi Transit Hotel

I also sampled ugali with eggs. In Mombasa, I visited an Indian restaurant called New Chetna and had a buffet thali there twice.

Ugali with eggs.

Tips for Exchanging Money In Kenya, I exchanged my money at forex shops a couple of times. I received good exchange rates for bills larger than 50 USD. For instance, 1 USD on xe.com was 129 shillings, and I got 128.3 shillings per USD (a total of 12,830 shillings) for two 50 USD notes at an exchange in Nairobi, while 127 shillings, which was the highest rate at the banks. On the other hand, for smaller bills such as a one US dollar note, I would have got 125 shillings. A passport was the only document required for the exchange, and they also provided a receipt. A good piece of advice for travelers is to keep 50 USD or larger bills for exchanging into the local currency while saving the smaller US dollar bills for accommodation, as many hotels and hostels accept payment in US dollars (in addition to Kenyan shillings).

Missed Malindi and Lamu There were more places on my to-visit list in Kenya. But I simply didn t have time to cover them, as I don t like rushing through places, especially in a foreign country where there is a chance of me underestimating the amount of time it takes during transit. I would have liked to visit at least one of Kilifi, Watamu or Malindi beaches. Further, Lamu seemed like a unique place to visit as it has no cars or motorized transport; the only options for transport are boats and donkeys. That s it for now. Meet you in the next one :)

The Reproducible Builds project relies on several projects, supporters and sponsors for financial support, but they are also valued as ambassadors who spread the word about our project and the work that we do. This is the eighth installment in a series featuring the projects, companies and individuals who support the Reproducible Builds project. We started this series by featuring the Civil Infrastructure Platform project, and followed this up with a post about the Ford Foundation as well as recent ones about ARDC, the Google Open Source Security Team (GOSST), Bootstrappable Builds, the F-Droid project, David A. Wheeler and Simon Butler. Today, however, we will be talking with Kees Cook, founder of the Kernel Self-Protection Project.

Vagrant Cascadian: Could you tell me a bit about yourself? What sort of things do you work on? Kees Cook: I m a Free Software junkie living in Portland, Oregon, USA. I have been focusing on the upstream Linux kernel s protection of itself. There is a lot of support that the kernel provides userspace to defend itself, but when I first started focusing on this there was not as much attention given to the kernel protecting itself. As userspace got more hardened the kernel itself became a bigger target. Almost 9 years ago I formally announced the Kernel Self-Protection Project because the work necessary was way more than my time and expertise could do alone. So I just try to get people to help as much as possible; people who understand the ARM architecture, people who understand the memory management subsystem to help, people who understand how to make the kernel less buggy.
Vagrant: Could you describe the path that lead you to working on this sort of thing? Kees: I have always been interested in security through the aspect of exploitable flaws. I always thought it was like a magic trick to make a computer do something that it was very much not designed to do and seeing how easy it is to subvert bugs. I wanted to improve that fragility. In 2006, I started working at Canonical on Ubuntu and was mainly focusing on bringing Debian and Ubuntu up to what was the state of the art for Fedora and Gentoo s security hardening efforts. Both had really pioneered a lot of userspace hardening with compiler flags and ELF stuff and many other things for hardened binaries. On the whole, Debian had not really paid attention to it. Debian s packaging building process at the time was sort of a chaotic free-for-all as there wasn t centralized build methodology for defining things. Luckily that did slowly change over the years. In Ubuntu we had the opportunity to apply top down build rules for hardening all the packages. In 2011 Chrome OS was following along and took advantage of a bunch of the security hardening work as they were based on ebuild out of Gentoo and when they looked for someone to help out they reached out to me. We recognized the Linux kernel was pretty much the weakest link in the Chrome OS security posture and I joined them to help solve that. Their userspace was pretty well handled but the kernel had a lot of weaknesses, so focusing on hardening was the next place to go. When I compared notes with other users of the Linux kernel within Google there were a number of common concerns and desires. Chrome OS already had an upstream first requirement, so I tried to consolidate the concerns and solve them upstream. It was challenging to land anything in other kernel team repos at Google, as they (correctly) wanted to minimize their delta from upstream, so I needed to work on any major improvements entirely in upstream and had a lot of support from Google to do that. As such, my focus shifted further from working directly on Chrome OS into being entirely upstream and being more of a consultant to internal teams, helping with integration or sometimes backporting. Since the volume of needed work was so gigantic I needed to find ways to inspire other developers (both inside and outside of Google) to help. Once I had a budget I tried to get folks paid (or hired) to work on these areas when it wasn t already their job.
Vagrant: So my understanding of some of your recent work is basically defining undefined behavior in the language or compiler? Kees: I ve found the term undefined behavior to have a really strict meaning within the compiler community, so I have tried to redefine my goal as eliminating unexpected behavior or ambiguous language constructs . At the end of the day ambiguity leads to bugs, and bugs lead to exploitable security flaws. I ve been taking a four-pronged approach: supporting the work people are doing to get rid of ambiguity, identify new areas where ambiguity needs to be removed, actually removing that ambiguity from the C language, and then dealing with any needed refactoring in the Linux kernel source to adapt to the new constraints. None of this is particularly novel; people have recognized how dangerous some of these language constructs are for decades and decades but I think it is a combination of hard problems and a lot of refactoring that nobody has the interest/resources to do. So, we have been incrementally going after the lowest hanging fruit. One clear example in recent years was the elimination of C s implicit fall-through in switch statements. The language would just fall through between adjacent cases if a break (or other code flow directive) wasn t present. But this is ambiguous: is the code meant to fall-through, or did the author just forget a break statement? By defining the [[fallthrough]] statement, and requiring its use in Linux, all switch statements now have explicit code flow, and the entire class of bugs disappeared. During our refactoring we actually found that 1 in 10 added [[fallthrough]] statements were actually missing break statements. This was an extraordinarily common bug! So getting rid of that ambiguity is where we have been. Another area I ve been spending a bit of time on lately is looking at how defensive security work has challenges associated with metrics. How do you measure your defensive security impact? You can t say because we installed locks on the doors, 20% fewer break-ins have happened. Much of our signal is always secondary or retrospective, which is frustrating: This class of flaw was used X much over the last decade so, and if we have eliminated that class of flaw and will never see it again, what is the impact? Is the impact infinity? Attackers will just move to the next easiest thing. But it means that exploitation gets incrementally more difficult. As attack surfaces are reduced, the expense of exploitation goes up.
Vagrant: So it is hard to identify how effective this is how bad would it be if people just gave up? Kees: I think it would be pretty bad, because as we have seen, using secondary factors, the work we have done in the industry at large, not just the Linux kernel, has had an impact. What we, Microsoft, Apple, and everyone else is doing for their respective software ecosystems, has shown that the price of functional exploits in the black market has gone up. Especially for really egregious stuff like a zero-click remote code execution. If those were cheap then obviously we are not doing something right, and it becomes clear that it s trivial for anyone to attack the infrastructure that our lives depend on. But thankfully we have seen over the last two decades that prices for exploits keep going up and up into millions of dollars. I think it is important to keep working on that because, as a central piece of modern computer infrastructure, the Linux kernel has a giant target painted on it. If we give up, we have to accept that our computers are not doing what they were designed to do, which I can t accept. The safety of my grandparents shouldn t be any different from the safety of journalists, and political activists, and anyone else who might be the target of attacks. We need to be able to trust our devices otherwise why use them at all?
Vagrant: What has been your biggest success in recent years? Kees: I think with all these things I am not the only actor. Almost everything that we have been successful at has been because of a lot of people s work, and one of the big ones that has been coordinated across the ecosystem and across compilers was initializing stack variables to 0 by default. This feature was added in Clang, GCC, and MSVC across the board even though there were a lot of fears about forking the C language. The worry was that developers would come to depend on zero-initialized stack variables, but this hasn t been the case because we still warn about uninitialized variables when the compiler can figure that out. So you still still get the warnings at compile time but now you can count on the contents of your stack at run-time and we drop an entire class of uninitialized variable flaws. While the exploitation of this class has mostly been around memory content exposure, it has also been used for control flow attacks. So that was politically and technically a large challenge: convincing people it was necessary, showing its utility, and implementing it in a way that everyone would be happy with, resulting in the elimination of a large and persistent class of flaws in C.
Vagrant: In a world where things are generally Reproducible do you see ways in which that might affect your work? Kees: One of the questions I frequently get is, What version of the Linux kernel has feature $foo? If I know how things are built, I can answer with just a version number. In a Reproducible Builds scenario I can count on the compiler version, compiler flags, kernel configuration, etc. all those things are known, so I can actually answer definitively that a certain feature exists. So that is an area where Reproducible Builds affects me most directly. Indirectly, it is just being able to trust the binaries you are running are going to behave the same for the same build environment is critical for sane testing.
Vagrant: Have you used diffoscope? Kees: I have! One subset of tree-wide refactoring that we do when getting rid of ambiguous language usage in the kernel is when we have to make source level changes to satisfy some new compiler requirement but where the binary output is not expected to change at all. It is mostly about getting the compiler to understand what is happening, what is intended in the cases where the old ambiguity does actually match the new unambiguous description of what is intended. The binary shouldn t change. We have used diffoscope to compare the before and after binaries to confirm that yep, there is no change in binary .
Vagrant: You cannot just use checksums for that? Kees: For the most part, we need to only compare the text segments. We try to hold as much stable as we can, following the Reproducible Builds documentation for the kernel, but there are macros in the kernel that are sensitive to source line numbers and as a result those will change the layout of the data segment (and sometimes the text segment too). With diffoscope there s flexibility where I can exclude or include different comparisons. Sometimes I just go look at what diffoscope is doing and do that manually, because I can tweak that a little harder, but diffoscope is definitely the default. Diffoscope is awesome!
Vagrant: Where has reproducible builds affected you? Kees: One of the notable wins of reproducible builds lately was dealing with the fallout of the XZ backdoor and just being able to ask the question is my build environment running the expected code? and to be able to compare the output generated from one install that never had a vulnerable XZ and one that did have a vulnerable XZ and compare the results of what you get. That was important for kernel builds because the XZ threat actor was working to expand their influence and capabilities to include Linux kernel builds, but they didn t finish their work before they were noticed. I think what happened with Debian proving the build infrastructure was not affected is an important example of how people would have needed to verify the kernel builds too.
Vagrant: What do you want to see for the near or distant future in security work? Kees: For reproducible builds in the kernel, in the work that has been going on in the ClangBuiltLinux project, one of the driving forces of code and usability quality has been the continuous integration work. As soon as something breaks, on the kernel side, the Clang side, or something in between the two, we get a fast signal and can chase it and fix the bugs quickly. I would like to see someone with funding to maintain a reproducible kernel build CI. There have been places where there are certain architecture configurations or certain build configuration where we lose reproducibility and right now we have sort of a standard open source development feedback loop where those things get fixed but the time in between introduction and fix can be large. Getting a CI for reproducible kernels would give us the opportunity to shorten that time.
Vagrant: Well, thanks for that! Any last closing thoughts? Kees: I am a big fan of reproducible builds, thank you for all your work. The world is a safer place because of it.
Vagrant: Likewise for your work!

---

For more information about the Reproducible Builds project, please see our website at reproducible-builds.org. If you are interested in ensuring the ongoing security of the software that underpins our civilisation and wish to sponsor the Reproducible Builds project, please reach out to the project by emailing contact@reproducible-builds.org.

Prior to arrival in Kenya, you need to apply for an Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) on their website by uploading all the required documents. This system is in place since Jan 2024 after the country abolished the visa system, implementing the eTA portal. The required documents will depend on the purpose of your visit, which in my case, was to attend a conference. Here is the list of documents I submitted for my eTA:

• Scanned copy of my passport
• Photograph with white background
• Flight tickets (reservation)
• Hotel bookings (reservation)
• Invitation letter from the conference
• Yellow Fever vaccination certificate (optional)
• Job contract (optional)

Reservation means I didn t book the flights and hotels, but rather reserved them. Additionally, optional means that those documents were not mandatory to submit, but I submitted them in the Other Documents section in order to support my application. After submitting the eTA, I had to make a payment of around 35 US Dollars (approximately 3000 Indian Rupees). It took 40 hours for me to receive an email from Kenya stating that my eTA has been approved, along with an attached PDF, making this one of my smoothest experiences of obtaining travel documents to travel to a country :). An eTA is technically not a visa, but I put the word visa in the title due to familiarity with the term.

Armadillo is a powerful and expressive C++ template library for linear algebra and scientific computing. It aims towards a good balance between speed and ease of use, has a syntax deliberately close to Matlab, and is useful for algorithm development directly in C++, or quick conversion of research code into production environments. RcppArmadillo integrates this library with the R environment and language and is widely used by (currently) 1158 other packages on CRAN, downloaded 35.1 million times (per the partial logs from the cloud mirrors of CRAN), and the CSDA paper (preprint / vignette) by Conrad and myself has been cited 587 times according to Google Scholar. Conrad released a new major upstream version 14.0.0 a couple of days ago. We had been testing this new version extensively over several rounds of reverse-dependency checks across all 1100+ packages. This revealed nine packages requiring truly minor adjustments which eight maintainers made in a matter of days; all this was coordinated in issue #443. Following the upload, CRAN noticed one more issue (see issue #446) but this turned out to be local to the package. There are also renewed deprecation warnings with some Armadillo changes which we will need to address one-by-one. Last but not least with this release we also changed the package versioning scheme to follow upstream Armadillo more closely. The set of changes since the last CRAN release follows.

Changes in RcppArmadillo version 14.0.0-1 (2024-07-05)

• Upgraded to Armadillo release 14.0.0 (Stochastic Parrot)
  • C++14 is now the minimum recommended C++ standard
  • Faster handling of compound expressions by as_scalar(), accu(), dot()
  • Faster interactions between sparse and dense matrices
  • Expanded stddev() to handle sparse matrices
  • Expanded relational operators to handle expressions between sparse matrices and scalars
  • Added .as_dense() to obtain dense vector/matrix representation of any sparse matrix expression
  • Updated physical constants to NIST 2022 CODATA values
• New package version numbering scheme following upstream versions
• Re-enabling ARMA_IGNORE_DEPRECATED_MARKE for silent CRAN builds

Courtesy of my CRANberries, there is a diffstat report relative to previous release. More detailed information is on the RcppArmadillo page. Questions, comments etc should go to the rcpp-devel mailing list off the Rcpp R-Forge page. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can sponsor me at GitHub.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

As regular readers would know, since I never stop banging on about it, I run Pwnedkeys, a service which finds and collates private keys which have been disclosed or are otherwise compromised. Until now, the only way to check if a key is compromised has been to use the Pwnedkeys API, which is not necessarily trivial for everyone. Starting today, that s changing. The next phase of Pwnedkeys is to start offering more user-friendly tools for checking whether keys being used are compromised. These will typically be web-based or command-line tools intended to answer the question is the key in this (certificate, CSR, authorized_keys file, TLS connection, email, etc) known to Pwnedkeys to have been compromised? .

Opening the Toolbox Available right now are the first web-based key checking tools in this arsenal. These tools allow you to:

1. Check the key in a PEM-format X509 data structure (such as a CSR or certificate);
2. Check the keys in an authorized_keys file you upload; and
3. Check the SSH keys used by a user at any one of a number of widely-used code-hosting sites.

Further planned tools include live checking of the certificates presented in TLS connections (for HTTPS, etc), SSH host keys, command-line utilities for checking local authorized_keys files, and many other goodies.

If You Are Intrigued By My Ideas and wish to subscribe to my newsletter, now you can! I m not going to be blogging every little update to Pwnedkeys, because that would probably get a bit tedious for readers who aren t as intrigued by compromised keys as I am. Instead, I ll be posting every little update in the Pwnedkeys newsletter. So, if you want to keep up-to-date with the latest and greatest news and information, subscribe to the newsletter.

Supporting Pwnedkeys All this work I m doing on my own time, and I m paying for the infrastructure from my own pocket. If you ve got a few dollars to spare, I d really appreciate it if you bought me a refreshing beverage. It helps keep the lights on here at Pwnedkeys Global HQ.

I am getting increasingly frustrated by Fira Mono's lack of italic support so I am looking at alternative fonts again.

Commit Mono This time I seem to be settling on either Commit Mono or Space Mono. For now I'm using Commit Mono because it's a little more compressed than Fira and does have a italic version. I don't like how Space Mono's parenthesis (()) is "squarish", it feels visually ambiguous with the square brackets ([]), a big no-no for my primary use case (code). So here I am using a new font, again. It required changing a bunch of configuration files in my home directory (which is in a private repository, sorry) and Emacs configuration (thankfully that's public!). One gotcha is I realized I didn't actually have a global font configuration in Emacs, as some Faces define their own font family, which overrides the frame defaults. This is what it looks like, before:

Fira Mono

After:

Commit Mono

(Notice how those screenshots are not sharp? I'm surprised too. The originals look sharp on my display, I suspect this is something to do with the Wayland transition. I've tried with both grim and flameshot, for what its worth.) They are pretty similar! Commit Mono feels a bit more vertically compressed maybe too much so, actually -- the line height feels too low. But it's heavily customizable so that's something that's relatively easy to fix, if it's really a problem. Its weight is also a little heavier and wider than Fira which I find a little distracting right now, but maybe I'll get used to it. All characters seem properly distinguishable, although, if I'd really want to nitpick I'd say the and are too different, with the latter (REGISTERED SIGN) being way too small, basically unreadable here. Since I see this sign approximately never, it probably doesn't matter at all. I like how the ampersand (&) is more traditional, although I'll miss the exotic one Fira produced... I like how the back quotes ( , GRAVE ACCENT) drop down low, nicely aligned with the apostrophe. As I mentioned before, I like how the bar on the "f" aligns with the other top of letters, something in Fira mono that really annoys me now that I've noticed it (it's not aligned!).

A UTF-8 test file Here's the test sheet I've made up to test various characters. I could have sworn I had a good one like this lying around somewhere but couldn't find it so here it is, I guess.

US keyboard coverage:
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 1234567890-=[]\;',./
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ~!@#$%^&*()_+ :"<>?
latin1 coverage:  
EURO SIGN, TRADE MARK SIGN:  
ambiguity test:
e coC0ODQ iI71lL! 
b6G&0B83  []() /\. 
zs$S52Z%   '" 
all characters in a sentence, uppercase:
the quick fox jumps over the lazy dog
THE QUICK FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG
same, in french:
Portez ce vieux whisky au juge blond qui fume.
d s no l, o  un z phyr ha  me v t de gla ons w rmiens, je d ne
d exquis r tis de b uf au kir,   l a  d ge m r, &c tera.
D S NO L, O  UN Z PHYR HA  ME V T DE GLA ONS W RMIENS, JE D NE
D EXQUIS R TIS DE B UF AU KIR,   L A  D GE M R, &C TERA.
Ligatures test:
-<< -< -<- <-- <--- <<- <- -> ->> --> ---> ->- >- >>-
=<< =< =<= <== <=== <<= <= => =>> ==> ===> =>= >= >>=
<-> <--> <---> <----> <=> <==> <===> <====> :: ::: __
<~~ </ </> /> ~~> == != /= ~= <> === !== !=== =/= =!=
<: := *= *+ <* <*> *> <  < >  > <. <.> .> +* =* =: :>
(* *) /* */ [   ]     ++ +++ \/ /\  - -  <!-- <!---
Box drawing alignment tests:
                                                                    
                                 
                           
                                                   
                                       
                                                 
                               
                                
Dashes alignment test:
HYPHEN-MINUS, MINUS SIGN, EN, EM DASH, HORIZONTAL BAR, LOW LINE
--------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
 
__________________________________________________

Update: here is another such sample sheet, it's pretty good and has support for more languages while being still relatively small. So there you have it, got completely nerd swiped by typography again. Now I can go back to writing a too-long proposal again. Sources and inspiration for the above:

• the unicode(1) command, to lookup individual characters to disambiguate, for example, - (U+002D HYPHEN-MINUS, the minus sign next to zero on US keyboards) and (U+2212 MINUS SIGN, a math symbol)
• searchable list of characters and their names - roughly equivalent to the unicode(1) command, but in one page, amazingly the /usr/share/unicode database doesn't have any one file like this
• bits/UTF-8-Unicode-Test-Documents - full list of UTF-8 characters
• UTF-8 encoded plain text file - nice examples of edge cases, curly quotes example and box drawing alignment test which, incidentally, showed me I needed specific faces customisation in Emacs to get the Markdown code areas to display properly, also the idea of comparing various dashes
• sample sentences in many languages - unused, "Sentences that contain all letters commonly used in a language"
• UTF-8 sampler - unused, similar

Other fonts In my previous blog post about fonts, I had a list of alternative fonts, but it seems people are not digging through this, so I figured I would redo the list here to preempt "but have you tried Jetbrains mono" kind of comments. My requirements are:

• no ligatures: yes, in the previous post, I wanted ligatures but I have changed my mind. after testing this, I find them distracting, confusing, and they often break the monospace nature of the display
• monospace: this is to display code
• italics: often used when writing Markdown, where I do make use of italics... Emacs falls back to underlining text when lacking italics which is hard to read
• free-ish, ultimately should be packaged in Debian

Here is the list of alternatives I have considered in the past and why I'm not using them:

• agave: recommended by tarzeau, not sure I like the lowercase a, a bit too exotic, packaged as fonts-agave
• Cascadia code: optional ligatures, multilingual, not liking the alignment, ambiguous parenthesis (look too much like square brackets), new default for Windows Terminal and Visual Studio, packaged as fonts-cascadia-code
• Fira Code: ligatures, was using Fira Mono from which it is derived, lacking italics except for forks, interestingly, Fira Code succeeds the alignment test but Fira Mono fails to show the X signs properly! packaged as fonts-firacode
• Hack: no ligatures, very similar to Fira, italics, good alternative, fails the X test in box alignment, packaged as fonts-hack
• Hermit: no ligatures, smaller, alignment issues in box drawing and dashes, packaged as fonts-hermit somehow part of cool-retro-term
• IBM Plex: irritating website, replaces Helvetica as the IBM corporate font, no ligatures by default, italics, proportional alternatives, serifs and sans, multiple languages, partial failure in box alignment test (X signs), fancy curly braces contrast perhaps too much with the rest of the font, packaged in Debian as fonts-ibm-plex
• Inconsolata: no ligatures, maybe italics? more compressed than others, feels a little out of balance because of that, packaged in Debian as fonts-inconsolata
• Intel One Mono: nice legibility, no ligatures, alignment issues in box drawing, not packaged in Debian
• Iosevka: optional ligatures, italics, multilingual, good legibility, has a proportional option, serifs and sans, line height issue in box drawing, fails dash test, not in Debian
• Jetbrains Mono: (mandatory?) ligatures, good coverage, originally rumored to be not DFSG-free (Debian Free Software Guidelines) but ultimately packaged in Debian as fonts-jetbrains-mono
• Monoid: optional ligatures, feels much "thinner" than Jetbrains, not liking alignment or spacing on that one, ambiguous 2Z, problems rendering box drawing, packaged as fonts-monoid
• Mononoki: no ligatures, looks good, good alternative, suggested by the Debian fonts team as part of fonts-recommended, problems rendering box drawing, em dash bigger than en dash, packaged as fonts-mononoki
• Source Code Pro: italics, looks good, but dash metrics look whacky, not in Debian
• spleen: bitmap font, old school, spacing issue in box drawing test, packaged as fonts-spleen
• sudo: personal project, no ligatures, zero originally not dotted, relied on metrics for legibility, spacing issue in box drawing, not in Debian

So, if I get tired of Commit Mono, I might probably try, in order:

1. Hack
2. Jetbrains Mono
3. IBM Plex Mono

Iosevka, Monoki and Intel One Mono are also good options, but have alignment problems. Iosevka is particularly disappointing as the EM DASH metrics are just completely wrong (much too wide). This was tested using the Programming fonts site which has all the above fonts, which cannot be said of Font Squirrel or Google Fonts, amazingly. Other such tools:

• Coding Font (broken in Firefox as of 2024-05-30)
• dev fonts comparator
• Font Squirrel
• Google Fonts
• Programming fonts

I wrote a blog post The Shape of Computers [1] exploring ideas of how computers might evolve and how we can use them. One of the devices I mentioned was the Humane AI Pin, which has just been the recipient of one of the biggest roast reviews I ve ever seen [2], good work Marques Brownlee! As an aside I was once given a product to review which didn t work nearly as well as I think it should have worked so I sent an email to the developers saying sorry this product failed to work well so I can t say anything good about it and didn t publish a review. One of the first things that caught my attention in the review is the note that the AI Pin doesn t connect to your phone. I think that everything should connect to everything else as a usability feature. For security we don t want so much connecting and it s quite reasonable to turn off various connections at appropriate times for security, the Librem5 is an example of how this can be done with hardware switches to disable Wifi etc. But to just not have connectivity is bad. The next noteworthy thing is the external battery which also acts as a magnetic attachment from inside your shirt. So I guess it s using wireless charging through your shirt. A magnetically attached external battery would be a great feature for a phone, you could quickly swap a discharged battery for a fresh one and keep using it. When I tried to make the PinePhonePro my daily driver [3] I gave up and charging was one of the main reasons. One thing I learned from my experiment with the PinePhonePro is that the ratio of charge time to discharge time is sometimes more important than battery life and being able to quickly swap batteries without rebooting is a way of solving that. The reviewer of the AI Pin complains later in the video about battery life which seems to be partly due to wireless charging from the detachable battery and partly due to being physically small. It seems the phablet form factor is the smallest viable personal computer at this time. The review glosses over what could be the regarded as the 2 worst issues of the device. It does everything via the cloud (where the cloud means a computer owned by someone I probably shouldn t trust ) and it records everything. Strange that it s not getting the hate the Google Glass got. The user interface based on laser projection of menus on the palm of your hand is an interesting concept. I d rather have a Bluetooth attached tablet or something for operations that can t be conveniently done with voice. The reviewer harshly criticises the laser projection interface later in the video, maybe technology isn t yet adequate to implement this properly. The first criticism of the device in the review part of the video is of the time taken to answer questions, especially when Internet connectivity is poor. His question who designed the Washington Monument took 8 seconds to start answering it in his demonstration. I asked the Alpaca LLM the same question running on 4 cores of a E5-2696 and it took 10 seconds to start answering and then printed the words at about speaking speed. So if we had a free software based AI device for this purpose it shouldn t be difficult to get local LLM computation with less delay than the Humane device by simply providing more compute power than 4 cores of a E5-2696v3. How does a 32 core 1.05GHz Mali G72 from 2017 (as used in the Galaxy Note 9) compare to 4 cores of a 2.3GHz Intel CPU from 2015? Passmark says that Intel CPU can do 48GFlop with all 18 cores so 4 cores can presumably do about 10GFlop which seems less than the claimed 20-32GFlop of the Mali G72. It seems that with the right software even older Android phones could give adequate performance for a local LLM. The Alpaca model I m testing with takes 4.2G of RAM to run which is usable in a Note 9 with 8G of RAM or a Pixel 8 Pro with 12G. A Pixel 8 Pro could have 4.2G of RAM reserved for a LLM and still have as much RAM for other purposes as my main laptop as of a few months ago. I consider the speed of Alpaca on my workstation to be acceptable but not great. If we can get FOSS phones running a LLM at that speed then I think it would be great for a first version we can always rely on newer and faster hardware becoming available. Marques notes that the cause of some of the problems is likely due to a desire to make it a separate powerful product in the future and that if they gave it phone connectivity in the start they would have to remove that later on. I think that the real problem is that the profit motive is incompatible with good design. They want to have a product that s stand-alone and justifies the purchase price plus subscription and that means not making it a phone accessory . While I think that the best thing for the user is to allow it to talk to a phone, a PC, a car, and anything else the user wants. He compares it to the Apple Vision Pro which has the same issue of trying to be a stand-alone computer but not being properly capable of it. One of the benefits that Marques cites for the AI Pin is the ability to capture voice notes. Dictaphones have been around for over 100 years and very few people have bought them, not even in the 80s when they became cheap. While almost everyone can occasionally benefit from being able to make a note of an idea when it s not convenient to write it down there are few people who need it enough to carry a separate device, not even if that device is tiny. But a phone as a general purpose computing device with microphone can easily be adapted to such things. One possibility would be to program a phone to start a voice note when the volume up and down buttons are pressed at the same time or when some other condition is met. Another possibility is to have a phone have a hotkey function that varies by what you are doing, EG if bushwalking have the hotkey be to take a photo or if on a flight have it be taking a voice note. On the Mobile Apps page on the Debian wiki I created a section for categories of apps that I think we need [4]. In that section I added the following list:

1. Voice input for dictation
2. Voice assistant like Google/Apple
3. Voice output
4. Full operation for visually impaired people

One thing I really like about the AI Pin is that it has the potential to become a really good computing and personal assistant device for visually impaired people funded by people with full vision who want to legally control a computer while driving etc. I have some concerns about the potential uses of the AI Pin while driving (as Marques stated an aim to do), but if it replaces the use of regular phones while driving it will make things less bad. Marques concludes his video by warning against buying a product based on the promise of what it can be in future. I bought the Librem5 on exactly that promise, the difference is that I have the source and the ability to help make the promise come true. My aim is to spend thousands of dollars on test hardware and thousands of hours of development time to help make FOSS phones a product that most people can use at low price with little effort. Another interesting review of the pin is by Mrwhostheboss [5], one of his examples is of asking the pin for advice about a chair but without him knowing the pin selected a different chair in the room. He compares this to using Google s apps on a phone and seeing which item the app has selected. He also said that he doesn t want to make an order based on speech he wants to review a page of information about it. I suspect that the design of the pin had too much input from people accustomed to asking a corporate travel office to find them a flight and not enough from people who look through the details of the results of flight booking services trying to save an extra $20. Some people might say if you need to save $20 on a flight then a $24/month subscription computing service isn t for you , I reject that argument. I can afford lots of computing services because I try to get the best deal on every moderately expensive thing I pay for. Another point that Mrwhostheboss makes is regarding secret SMS, you probably wouldn t want to speak a SMS you are sending to your SO while waiting for a train. He makes it clear that changing between phone and pin while sharing resources (IE not having a separate phone number and separate data store) is a desired feature. The most insightful point Mrwhostheboss made was when he suggested that if the pin had come out before the smartphone then things might have all gone differently, but now anything that s developed has to be based around the expectations of phone use. This is something we need to keep in mind when developing FOSS software, there s lots of different ways that things could be done but we need to meet the expectations of users if we want our software to be used by many people. I previously wrote a blog post titled Considering Convergence [6] about the possible ways of using a phone as a laptop. While I still believe what I wrote there I m now considering the possibility of ease of movement of work in progress as a way of addressing some of the same issues. I ve written a blog post about Convergence vs Transferrence [7].

• [1] https://etbe.coker.com.au/2024/03/13/shape-computers/
• [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TitZV6k8zfA
• [3] https://etbe.coker.com.au/2023/10/11/pinephone-status/
• [4] https://wiki.debian.org/MobileApps
• [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O2yTG3n1Vc
• [6] https://etbe.coker.com.au/2023/05/29/considering-convergence/
• [7] https://etbe.coker.com.au/2024/04/26/convergence-vs-transference/

I work from home these days, and my nearest office is over 100 miles away, 3 hours door to door if I travel by train (and, to be honest, probably not a lot faster given rush hour traffic if I drive). So I m reliant on a functional internet connection in order to be able to work. I m lucky to have access to Openreach FTTP, provided by Aquiss, but I worry about what happens if there s a cable cut somewhere or some other long lasting problem. Worst case I could tether to my work phone, or try to find some local coworking space to use while things get sorted, but I felt like arranging a backup option was a wise move. Step 1 turned out to be sorting out recursive DNS. It s been many moons since I had to deal with running DNS in a production setting, and I ve mostly done my best to avoid doing it at home too. dnsmasq has done a decent job at providing for my needs over the years, covering DHCP, DNS (+ tftp for my test device network). However I just let it forward to my ISP s nameservers, which means if that link goes down it ll no longer be able to resolve anything outside the house. One option would have been to either point to a different recursive DNS server (Cloudfare s 1.1.1.1 or Google s Public DNS being the common choices), but I ve no desire to share my lookup information with them. As another approach I could have done some sort of failover of resolv.conf when the primary network went down, but then I would have to get into moving files around based on networking status and that felt a bit clunky. So I decided to finally setup a proper local recursive DNS server, which is something I ve kinda meant to do for a while but never had sufficient reason to look into. Last time I did this I did it with BIND 9 but there are more options these days, and I decided to go with unbound, which is primarily focused on recursive DNS. One extra wrinkle, pointed out by Lars, is that having dynamic name information from DHCP hosts is exceptionally convenient. I ve kept dnsmasq as the local DHCP server, so I wanted to be able to forward local queries there. I m doing all of this on my RB5009, running Debian. Installing unbound was a simple matter of apt install unbound. I needed 2 pieces of configuration over the default, one to enable recursive serving for the house networks, and one to enable forwarding of queries for the local domain to dnsmasq. I originally had specified the wildcard address for listening, but this caused problems with the fact my router has many interfaces and would sometimes respond from a different address than the request had come in on.

/etc/unbound/unbound.conf.d/network-resolver.conf

server:
  interface: 192.0.2.1
  interface: 2001::db8:f00d::1
  access-control: 192.0.2.0/24 allow
  access-control: 2001::db8:f00d::/56 allow

/etc/unbound/unbound.conf.d/local-to-dnsmasq.conf

server:
  domain-insecure: "example.org"
  do-not-query-localhost: no
forward-zone:
  name: "example.org"
  forward-addr: 127.0.0.1@5353

I then had to configure dnsmasq to not listen on port 53 (so unbound could), respond to requests on the loopback interface (I have dnsmasq restricted to only explicitly listed interfaces), and to hand out unbound as the appropriate nameserver in DHCP requests - once dnsmasq is not listening on port 53 it no longer does this by default.

/etc/dnsmasq.d/behind-unbound

interface=lo
port=5353
dhcp-option=option6:dns-server,[2001::db8:f00d::1]
dhcp-option=option:dns-server,192.0.2.1

With these minor changes in place I now have local recursive DNS being handled by unbound, without losing dynamic local DNS for DHCP hosts. As an added bonus I now get 10/10 on Test IPv6 - previously I was getting dinged on the ability for my DNS server to resolve purely IPv6 reachable addresses. Next step, actually sorting out a backup link.

I have had excellent colleagues both at my day job and, especially, in Debian over the last thirty-odd years. Several have attempted to give me good advice - others have been exemplars. People retire: sadly, people die. What impression do you want to leave behind when you leave here?Belatedly, I've come to realise that obduracy, sheer bloody mindedness, force of will and obstinacy will only get you so far. The following began very much as a tongue in cheek private memo to myself a good few years ago. I showed it to a colleague who suggested at the time that I should share it to a wider audience.

SOME ADVICE YOU MAY BENEFIT FROM

Personal conduct

• Never argue with someone you believe to be arguing idiotically - a dispassionate bystander may have difficulty telling who's who.
• You can't make yourself seem reasonable by behaving unreasonably
• It does not matter how correct your point of view is if you get people's backs up
• They may all be #####, @@@@@, %%%% and ******* - saying so out loud doesn't help improve matters and may make you seem intemperate.
  

Working with others

• Be the change you want to be and behave the way you want others to behave in order to achieve the desired outcome.
• You can demolish someone's argument constructively and add weight to good points rather than tearing down their ideas and hard work and being ultra-critical and negative - no-one likes to be told "You know - you've got a REALLY ugly baby there"
• It's easier to work with someone than to work against them and have to apologise repeatedly.
• Even when you're outstanding and superlative, even you had to learn it all once. Be generous to help others learn: you shouldn't have to teach too many times if you teach correctly once and take time in doing so.
  

Getting the message across

• Stop: think: write: review: (peer review if necessary): publish.
• Clarity is all: just because you understand it doesn't mean anyone else will.
• It does not matter how correct your point of view is if you put it across badly.
• If you're giving advice: make sure it is:
• Considered
• Constructive
• Correct as far as you can (and)
• Refers to other people who may be able to help
• Say thank you promptly if someone helps you and be prepared to give full credit where credit's due.
  

Work is like that

• You may not know all the answers or even have the whole picture - consult, take advice - LISTEN TO THE ADVICE
• Sometimes the right answer is not the immediately correct answer
• Corollary: Sometimes the right answer for the business is not your suggested/preferred outcome
• Corollary: Just because you can do it like that in the real world doesn't mean that you can do it that way inside the business. [This realisation is INTENSELY frustrating but you have to learn to deal with it]
• DON'T ALWAYS DO IT YOURSELF - Attempt to fix the system, sometimes allow the corporate monster to fail - then do it yourself and fix it. It is always easier and tempting to work round the system and Just Flaming Do It but it doesn't solve problems in the longer term and may create more problems and ill-feeling than it solves.
  
  [Worked out for Andy Cater for himself after many years of fighting the system as a misguided missile - though he will freely admit that he doesn't always follow them as often as he should :) ]
  

Welcome to the January 2024 report from the Reproducible Builds project. In these reports we outline the most important things that we have been up to over the past month. If you are interested in contributing to the project, please visit our Contribute page on our website.

---

How we executed a critical supply chain attack on PyTorch John Stawinski and Adnan Khan published a lengthy blog post detailing how they executed a supply-chain attack against PyTorch, a popular machine learning platform used by titans like Google, Meta, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin :

Our exploit path resulted in the ability to upload malicious PyTorch releases to GitHub, upload releases to [Amazon Web Services], potentially add code to the main repository branch, backdoor PyTorch dependencies the list goes on. In short, it was bad. Quite bad.

The attack pivoted on PyTorch s use of self-hosted runners as well as submitting a pull request to address a trivial typo in the project s README file to gain access to repository secrets and API keys that could subsequently be used for malicious purposes.

New Arch Linux forensic filesystem tool On our mailing list this month, long-time Reproducible Builds developer kpcyrd announced a new tool designed to forensically analyse Arch Linux filesystem images. Called archlinux-userland-fs-cmp, the tool is supposed to be used from a rescue image (any Linux) with an Arch install mounted to, [for example], /mnt. Crucially, however, at no point is any file from the mounted filesystem eval d or otherwise executed. Parsers are written in a memory safe language. More information about the tool can be found on their announcement message, as well as on the tool s homepage. A GIF of the tool in action is also available.

Issues with our SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH code? Chris Lamb started a thread on our mailing list summarising some potential problems with the source code snippet the Reproducible Builds project has been using to parse the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH environment variable:

I m not 100% sure who originally wrote this code, but it was probably sometime in the ~2015 era, and it must be in a huge number of codebases by now. Anyway, Alejandro Colomar was working on the shadow security tool and pinged me regarding some potential issues with the code. You can see this conversation here.

Chris ends his message with a request that those with intimate or low-level knowledge of time_t, C types, overflows and the various parsing libraries in the C standard library (etc.) contribute with further info.

Distribution updates In Debian this month, Roland Clobus posted another detailed update of the status of reproducible ISO images on our mailing list. In particular, Roland helpfully summarised that all major desktops build reproducibly with bullseye, bookworm, trixie and sid provided they are built for a second time within the same DAK run (i.e. [within] 6 hours) . Additionally 7 of the 8 bookworm images from the official download link build reproducibly at any later time. In addition to this, three reviews of Debian packages were added, 17 were updated and 15 were removed this month adding to our knowledge about identified issues. Elsewhere, Bernhard posted another monthly update for his work elsewhere in openSUSE.

Community updates There were made a number of improvements to our website, including Bernhard M. Wiedemann fixing a number of typos of the term nondeterministic . [ ] and Jan Zerebecki adding a substantial and highly welcome section to our page about SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH to document its interaction with distribution rebuilds. [ ].
diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. This month, Chris Lamb made a number of changes such as uploading versions 254 and 255 to Debian but focusing on triaging and/or merging code from other contributors. This included adding support for comparing eXtensible ARchive (.XAR/.PKG) files courtesy of Seth Michael Larson [ ][ ], as well considerable work from Vekhir in order to fix compatibility between various and subtle incompatible versions of the progressbar libraries in Python [ ][ ][ ][ ]. Thanks!

Reproducibility testing framework The Reproducible Builds project operates a comprehensive testing framework (available at tests.reproducible-builds.org) in order to check packages and other artifacts for reproducibility. In January, a number of changes were made by Holger Levsen:

• Debian-related changes:
  • Reduce the number of arm64 architecture workers from 24 to 16. [ ]
  • Use diffoscope from the Debian release being tested again. [ ]
  • Improve the handling when killing unwanted processes [ ][ ][ ] and be more verbose about it, too [ ].
  • Don t mark a job as failed if process marked as to-be-killed is already gone. [ ]
  • Display the architecture of builds that have been running for more than 48 hours. [ ]
  • Reboot arm64 nodes when they hit an OOM (out of memory) state. [ ]
• Package rescheduling changes:
  • Reduce IRC notifications to 1 when rescheduling due to package status changes. [ ]
  • Correctly set SUDO_USER when rescheduling packages. [ ]
  • Automatically reschedule packages regressing to FTBFS (build failure) or FTBR (build success, but unreproducible). [ ]
• OpenWrt-related changes:
  • Install the python3-dev and python3-pyelftools packages as they are now needed for the sunxi target. [ ][ ]
  • Also install the libpam0g-dev which is needed by some OpenWrt hardware targets. [ ]
• Misc:
  • As it s January, set the real_year variable to 2024 [ ] and bump various copyright years as well [ ].
  • Fix a large (!) number of spelling mistakes in various scripts. [ ][ ][ ]
  • Prevent Squid and Systemd processes from being killed by the kernel s OOM killer. [ ]
  • Install the iptables tool everywhere, else our custom rc.local script fails. [ ]
  • Cleanup the /srv/workspace/pbuilder directory on boot. [ ]
  • Automatically restart Squid if it fails. [ ]
  • Limit the execution of chroot-installation jobs to a maximum of 4 concurrent runs. [ ][ ]

Significant amounts of node maintenance was performed by Holger Levsen (eg. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ] etc.) and Vagrant Cascadian (eg. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]). Indeed, Vagrant Cascadian handled an extended power outage for the network running the Debian armhf architecture test infrastructure. This provided the incentive to replace the UPS batteries and consolidate infrastructure to reduce future UPS load. [ ] Elsewhere in our infrastructure, however, Holger Levsen also adjusted the email configuration for @reproducible-builds.org to deal with a new SMTP email attack. [ ]

Upstream patches The Reproducible Builds project tries to detects, dissects and fix as many (currently) unreproducible packages as possible. We endeavour to send all of our patches upstream where appropriate. This month, we wrote a large number of such patches, including:

• Bernhard M. Wiedemann:
  • cython (nondeterminstic path issue)
  • deluge (issue with modification time of .egg file)
  • gap-ferret, gap-semigroups & gap-simpcomp (nondeterministic config.log file)
  • grpc (filesystem ordering issue )
  • hub (random)
  • kubernetes1.22 & kubernetes1.23 (sort-related issue)
  • kubernetes1.24 & kubernetes1.25 (go -trimpath vs random issue)
  • libjcat (drop test files with random bytes)
  • luajit (Use new d option for deterministic bytecode output)
  • meson [ ][ ] (sort the results from Python filesystem call)
  • python-rjsmin (drop GCC instrumentation artifacts)
  • qt6-virtualkeyboard+others (bug parallelism/race)
  • SoapySDR (parallelism-related issue)
  • systemd (sorting problem)
  • warewulf (CPIO modification time issue, etc.)
• Chris Lamb:
  • #1060254 filed against mumble.
• James Addison:
  • guake ( Schroedinger file due to race condition)
  • qhelpgenerator-qt5 (timezone localization; fix also merged upstream for QT6)
  • sphinx (search index doctitle sorting)

Separate to this, Vagrant Cascadian followed up with the relevant maintainers when reproducibility fixes were not included in newly-uploaded versions of the mm-common package in Debian this was quickly fixed, however. [ ]

---

If you are interested in contributing to the Reproducible Builds project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. However, you can get in touch with us via:

• IRC: #reproducible-builds on irc.oftc.net.
• Mailing list: rb-general@lists.reproducible-builds.org
• Mastodon: @reproducible_builds
• Twitter: @ReproBuilds

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