Search Results: "lars"

3 July 2025

Russell Coker: The Fuss About AI

There are many negative articles about AI (which is not about actual Artificial Intelligence also known as AGI ). Which I think are mostly overblown and often ridiculous. Resource Usage Complaints about resource usage are common, training Llama 3.1 could apparently produce as much pollution as 10,000 round trips by car between Los Angeles and New York City . That s not great but when you compare to the actual number of people doing such drives in the US and the number of people taking commercial flights on that route it doesn t seem like such a big deal. Apparently commercial passenger jets cause CO2 emissions per passenger about equal to a car with 2 people. Why is it relevant whether pollution comes from running servers, driving cars, or steel mills? Why not just tax polluters for the damage they do and let the market sort it out? People in the US make a big deal about not being communist, so why not have a capitalist solution, make it more expensive to do undesirable things and let the market sort it out? ML systems are a less bad use of compute resources than Bitcoin, at least ML systems give some useful results while Bitcoin has nothing good going for it. The Dot-Com Comparison People often complain about the apparent impossibility of AI companies doing what investors think they will do. But this isn t anything new, that all happened before with the dot com boom . I m not the first person to make this comparison, The Daily WTF (a high quality site about IT mistakes) has an interesting article making this comparison [1]. But my conclusions are quite different. The result of that was a lot of Internet companies going bankrupt, the investors in those companies losing money, and other companies then bought up their assets and made profitable companies. The cheap Internet we now have was built on the hardware from bankrupt companies which was sold for far less than the manufacture price. That allowed it to scale up from modem speeds to ADSL without the users paying enough to cover the purchase of the infrastructure. In the early 2000s I worked for two major Dutch ISPs that went bankrupt (not my fault) and one of them continued operations in the identical manner after having the stock price go to zero (I didn t get to witness what happened with the other one). As far as I m aware random Dutch citizens and residents didn t suffer from this and employees just got jobs elsewhere. There are good things being done with ML systems and when companies like OpenAI go bankrupt other companies will buy the hardware and do good things. NVidia isn t ever going to have the future sales that would justify a market capitalisation of almost 4 Trillion US dollars. This market cap can support paying for new research and purchasing rights to patented technology in a similar way to the high stock price of Google supported buying YouTube, DoubleClick, and Motorola Mobility which are the keys to Google s profits now. The Real Upsides of ML Until recently I worked for a company that used ML systems to analyse drivers for signs of fatigue, distraction, or other inappropriate things (smoking which is illegal in China, using a mobile phone, etc). That work was directly aimed at saving human lives with a significant secondary aim of saving wear on vehicles (in the mining industry drowsy drivers damage truck tires and that s a huge business expense). There are many applications of ML in medical research such as recognising cancer cells in tissue samples. There are many less important uses for ML systems, such as recognising different types of pastries to correctly bill bakery customers technology that was apparently repurposed for recognising cancer cells. The ability to recognise objects in photos is useful. It can be used for people who want to learn about random objects they see and could be used for helping young children learn about their environment. It also has some potential for assistance for visually impaired people, it wouldn t be good for safety critical systems (don t cross a road because a ML system says there are no cars coming) but could be useful for identifying objects (is this a lemon or a lime). The Humane AI pin had some real potential to do good things but there wasn t a suitable business model [2], I think that someone will develop similar technology in a useful way eventually. Even without trying to do what the Humane AI Pin attempted, there are many ways for ML based systems to assist phone and PC use. ML systems allow analysing large quantities of data and giving information that may be correct. When used by a human who knows how to recognise good answers this can be an efficient way of solving problems. I personally have solved many computer problems with the help of LLM systems while skipping over many results that were obviously wrong to me. I believe that any expert in any field that is covered in the LLM input data could find some benefits from getting suggestions from an LLM. It won t necessarily allow them to solve problems that they couldn t solve without it but it can provide them with a set of obviously wrong answers mixed in with some useful tips about where to look for the right answers. Jobs and Politics Noema Magazine has an insightful article about how AI can allow different models of work which can enlarge the middle class [3]. I don t think it s reasonable to expect ML systems to make as much impact on society as the industrial revolution, and the agricultural revolutions which took society from more than 90% farm workers to less than 5%. That doesn t mean everything will be fine but it is something that can seem OK after the changes have happened. I m not saying apart from the death and destruction everything will be good , the death and destruction are optional. Improvements in manufacturing and farming didn t have to involve poverty and death for many people, improvements to agriculture didn t have to involve overcrowding and death from disease. This was an issue of political decisions that were made. The Real Problems of ML Political decisions that are being made now have the aim of making the rich even richer and leaving more people in poverty and in many cases dying due to being unable to afford healthcare. The ML systems that aim to facilitate such things haven t been as successful as evil people have hoped but it will happen and we need appropriate legislation if we aren t going to have revolutions. There are documented cases of suicide being inspired by Chat GPT systems [4]. There have been people inspired towards murder by ChatGPT systems but AFAIK no-one has actually succeeded in such a crime yet. There are serious issues that need to be addressed with the technology and with legal constraints about how people may use it. It s interesting to consider the possible uses of ChatGPT systems for providing suggestions to a psychologist, maybe ChatGPT systems could be used to alleviate mental health problems. The cases of LLM systems being used for cheating on assignments etc isn t a real issue. People have been cheating on assignments since organised education was invented. There is a real problem of ML systems based on biased input data that issue decisions that are the average of the bigotry of the people who provided input. That isn t going to be worse than the current situation of bigoted humans making decisions based on hate and preconceptions but it will be more insidious. It is possible to search for that so for example a bank could test it s mortgage approval ML system by changing one factor at a time (name, gender, age, address, etc) and see if it changes the answer. If it turns out that the ML system is biased on names then the input data could have names removed. If it turns out to be biased about address then there could be weights put in to oppose that. For a long time there has been excessive trust in computers. Computers aren t magic they just do maths really fast and implement choices based on the work of programmers who have all the failings of other humans. Excessive trust in a rule based system is less risky than excessive trust in a ML system where no-one really knows why it makes the decisions it makes. Self driving cars kill people, this is the truth that Tesla stock holders don t want people to know. Companies that try to automate everything with AI are going to be in for some nasty surprises. Getting computers to do everything that humans do in any job is going to be a large portion of an actual intelligent computer which if it is achieved will raise an entirely different set of problems. I ve previously blogged about ML Security [5]. I don t think this will be any worse than all the other computer security problems in the long term, although it will be more insidious. How Will It Go? Companies spending billions of dollars without firm plans for how to make money are going to go bankrupt no matter what business they are in. Companies like Google and Microsoft can waste some billions of dollars on AI Chat systems and still keep going as successful businesses. Companies like OpenAI that do nothing other than such chat systems won t go well. But their assets can be used by new companies when sold at less than 10% the purchase price. Companies like NVidia that have high stock prices based on the supposed ongoing growth in use of their hardware will have their stock prices crash. But the new technology they develop will be used by other people for other purposes. If hospitals can get cheap diagnostic ML systems because of unreasonable investment into AI then that could be a win for humanity. Companies that bet their entire business on AI even when it s not necessarily their core business (as Tesla has done with self driving) will have their stock price crash dramatically at a minimum and have the possibility of bankruptcy. Having Tesla go bankrupt is definitely better than having people try to use them as self driving cars.

12 May 2025

Freexian Collaborators: Debian Contributions: DebConf 25 preparations, PyPA tools updates, Removing libcrypt-dev from build-essential and more! (by Anupa Ann Joseph)

Debian Contributions: 2025-04 Contributing to Debian is part of Freexian s mission. This article covers the latest achievements of Freexian and their collaborators. All of this is made possible by organizations subscribing to our Long Term Support contracts and consulting services.

DebConf 25 Preparations, by Stefano Rivera and Santiago Ruano Rinc n DebConf 25 preparations continue. In April, the bursary team reviewed and ranked bursary applications. Santiago Ruano Rinc n examined the current state of the conference s finances, to see if we could allocate any more money to bursaries. Stefano Rivera supported the bursary team s work with infrastructure and advice and added some metrics to assist Santiago s budget review. Santiago was also involved in different parts of the organization, including Content team matters, as reviewing the first of proposals, preparing public information about the new Academic Track; or coordinating different aspects of the Day trip activities and the Conference Dinner.

PyPA tools updates, by Stefano Rivera Around the beginning of the freeze (in retrospect, definitely too late) Stefano looked at updating setuptools in the archive to 78.1.0. This brings support for more comprehensive license expressions (PEP-639), that people are expected to adopt soon upstream. While the reverse-autopkgtests all passed, it all came with some unexpected complications, and turned into a mini-transition. The new setuptools broke shebangs for scripts (pypa/setuptools#4952). It also required a bump of wheel to 0.46 and wheel 0.46 now has a dependency outside the standard library (it de-vendored packaging). This meant it was no longer suitable to distribute a standalone wheel.whl file to seed into new virtualenvs, as virtualenv does by default. The good news here is that setuptools doesn t need wheel any more, it included its own implementation of the bdist_wheel command, in 70.1. But the world hadn t adapted to take advantage of this, yet. Stefano scrambled to get all of these issues resolved upstream and in Debian: We re now at the point where python3-wheel-whl is no longer needed in Debian unstable, and it should migrate to trixie.

Removing libcrypt-dev from build-essential, by Helmut Grohne The crypt function was originally part of glibc, but it got separated to libxcrypt. As a result, libc6-dev now depends on libcrypt-dev. This poses a cycle during architecture cross bootstrap. As the number of packages actually using crypt is relatively small, Helmut proposed removing the dependency. He analyzed an archive rebuild kindly performed by Santiago Vila (not affiliated with Freexian) and estimated the necessary changes. It looks like we may complete this with modifications to less than 300 source packages in the forky cycle. Half of the bugs have been filed at this time. They are tracked with libcrypt-* usertags.

Miscellaneous contributions
  • Carles uploaded a new version of simplemonitor.
  • Carles improved the documentation of salsa-ci-team/pipeline regarding piuparts arguments.
  • Carles closed an FTBFS on gcc-15 on qnetload.
  • Carles worked on Catalan translations using po-debconf-manager: reviewed 57 translations and created their merge requests in salsa, created 59 bug reports for packages that didn t merge in more than 30 days. Followed-up merge requests and comments in bug reports. Managed some translations manually for packages that are not in Salsa.
  • Lucas did some work on the DebConf Content and Bursary teams.
  • Lucas fixed multiple CVEs and bugs involving the upgrade from bookworm to trixie in ruby3.3.
  • Lucas fixed a CVE in valkey in unstable.
  • Stefano updated beautifulsoup4, python-authlib, python-html2text, python-packaging, python-pip, python-soupsieve, and unidecode.
  • Stefano packaged python-dependency-groups, a new vendored library in python-pip.
  • During an afternoon Bug Squashing Party in Montevideo, Santiago uploaded a couple of packages fixing RC bugs #1057226 and #1102487. The latter was a sponsored upload.
  • Thorsten uploaded new upstream versions of brlaser, ptouch-driver and sane-airscan to get the latest upstream bug fixes into Trixie.
  • Rapha l filed an upstream bug on zim for a graphical glitch that he has been experiencing.
  • Colin Watson upgraded openssh to 10.0p1 (also known as 10.0p2), and debugged various follow-up bugs. This included adding riscv64 support to vmdb2 in passing, and enabling native wtmpdb support so that wtmpdb last now reports the correct tty for SSH connections.
  • Colin fixed dput-ng s override option, which had never previously worked.
  • Colin fixed a security bug in debmirror.
  • Colin did his usual routine work on the Python team: 21 packages upgraded to new upstream versions, 8 CVEs fixed, and about 25 release-critical bugs fixed.
  • Helmut filed patches for 21 cross build failures.
  • Helmut uploaded a new version of debvm featuring a new tool debefivm-create to generate EFI-bootable disk images compatible with other tools such as libvirt or VirtualBox. Much of the work was prototyped in earlier months. This generalizes mmdebstrap-autopkgtest-build-qemu.
  • Helmut continued reporting undeclared file conflicts and suggested package removals from unstable.
  • Helmut proposed build profiles for libftdi1 and gnupg2. To deal with recently added dependencies in the architecture cross bootstrap package set.
  • Helmut managed the /usr-move transition. He worked on ensuring that systemd would comply with Debian s policy. Dumat continues to locate problems here and there yielding discussion occasionally. He sent a patch for an upgrade problem in zutils.
  • Anupa worked with the Debian publicity team to publish Micronews and Bits posts.
  • Anupa worked with the DebConf 25 content team to review talk and event proposals for DebConf 25.

4 May 2025

Colin Watson: Free software activity in April 2025

About 90% of my Debian contributions this month were sponsored by Freexian. You can also support my work directly via Liberapay. Request for OpenSSH debugging help Following the OpenSSH work described below, I have an open report about the sshd server sometimes crashing when clients try to connect to it. I can t reproduce this myself, and arm s-length debugging is very difficult, but three different users have reported it. For the time being I can t pass it upstream, as it s entirely possible it s due to a Debian patch. Is there anyone reading this who can reproduce this bug and is capable of doing some independent debugging work, most likely involving bisecting changes to OpenSSH? I d suggest first seeing whether a build of the unmodified upstream 10.0p2 release exhibits the same bug. If it does, then bisect between 9.9p2 and 10.0p2; if not, then bisect the list of Debian patches. This would be extremely helpful, since at the moment it s a bit like trying to look for a needle in a haystack from the next field over by sending instructions to somebody with a magnifying glass. OpenSSH I upgraded the Debian packaging to OpenSSH 10.0p1 (now designated 10.0p2 by upstream due to a mistake in the release process, but they re the same thing), fixing CVE-2025-32728. This also involved a diffoscope bug report due to the version number change. I enabled the new --with-linux-memlock-onfault configure option to protect sshd against being swapped out, but this turned out to cause test failures on riscv64, so I disabled it again there. Debugging this took some time since I needed to do it under emulation, and in the process of setting up a testbed I added riscv64 support to vmdb2. In coordination with the wtmpdb maintainer, I enabled the new Y2038-safe native wtmpdb support in OpenSSH, so wtmpdb last now reports the correct tty. I fixed a couple of packaging bugs: I reviewed and merged several packaging contributions from others: dput-ng Since we added dput-ng integration to Debusine recently, I wanted to make sure that it was in good condition in trixie, so I fixed dput-ng: will FTBFS during trixie support period. Previously a similar bug had been fixed by just using different Ubuntu release names in tests; this time I made the tests independent of the current supported release data returned by distro_info, so this shouldn t come up again. We also ran into dput-ng: override doesn t override profile parameters, which needed somewhat more extensive changes since it turned out that that option had never worked. I fixed this after some discussion with Paul Tagliamonte to make sure I understood the background properly. man-db I released man-db 2.13.1. This just included various small fixes and a number of translation updates, but I wanted to get it into trixie in order to include a contribution to increase the MAX_NAME constant, since that was now causing problems for some pathological cases of manual pages in the wild that documented a very large number of terms. debmirror I fixed one security bug: debmirror prints credentials with progress. Python team I upgraded these packages to new upstream versions: In bookworm-backports, I updated these packages: I dropped a stale build-dependency from python-aiohttp-security that kept it out of testing (though unfortunately too late for the trixie freeze). I fixed or helped to fix various other build/test failures: I packaged python-typing-inspection, needed for a new upstream version of pydantic. I documented the architecture field in debian/tests/autopkgtest-pkg-pybuild.conf files. I fixed other odds and ends of bugs: Science team I fixed various build/test failures:

3 May 2025

Russ Allbery: Review: Paper Soldiers

Review: Paper Soldiers, by Saleha Mohsin
Publisher: Portfolio
Copyright: 2024
ISBN: 0-593-53912-5
Format: Kindle
Pages: 250
The subtitle of Paper Soldiers is "How the Weaponization of the Dollar Changed the World Order," which may give you the impression that this book is about US use of the dollar system for political purposes such as sanctions. Do not be fooled like I was; this subtitle is, at best, deceptive. Coverage of the weaponization of the dollar is superficial and limited to a few chapters. This book is, instead, a history of the strong dollar policy told via a collection of hagiographies of US Treasury Secretaries and written with all of the skeptical cynicism of a poleaxed fawn. There is going to be some grumbling about the state of journalism in this review. Per the author's note, Saleha Mohsin is the Bloomberg News beat reporter for the US Department of the Treasury. That is, sadly, exactly what this book reads like: routine beat reporting. Mohsin asked current and former Treasury officials what they were thinking at various points in history and then wrote down their answers without, so far as I can tell, considering any contradictory evidence or wondering whether they were telling the truth. Paper Soldiers does contain extensive notes (those plus the index fill about forty pages), so I guess you could do the cross-checking yourself, although apparently most of the interviews for this book were "on background" and are therefore unattributed. (Is this weird? I feel like this is weird.) Mohsin adds a bit of utterly conventional and uncritical economic framing and casts the whole project in the sort of slightly breathless and dramatized prose style that infests routine news stories in the US. I find this style of book unbelievably frustrating because it represents such a wasted opportunity. To me, the point of book-length journalism is precisely to not write in this style. When you're trying to crank out two or three articles a week covering current events, I understand why there isn't always space or time to go deep into background, skepticism, and contrary opinions. But when you expand that material into a book, surely the whole point is to take the time to do some real reporting. Dig into what people told you, see if they're lying, talk to the people who disagree with them, question the conventional assumptions, and show your work on the page so that the reader is smarter after finishing your book than they were before they started. International political economics is not a sequence of objective facts. It's a set of decisions made in pursuit of economic and political theories that are disputed and arguable, and I think you owe the reader some sense of the argument and, ideally, some defensible position on the merits that is more than a transcription of your interviews. This is... not that.
It's a power loop that the United States still enjoys today: trust in America's dollar (and its democratic government) allows for cheap debt financing, which buys health care built on the most advanced research and development and inventions like airplanes and the iPhone. All of this is propelled by free market innovation and the superpowered strength to keep the nation safe from foreign threats. That investment boosts the nation's economic, military, and technological prowess, making its economy (and the dollar) even more attractive.
Let me be precise about my criticism. I am not saying that every contention in the above excerpt is wrong. Some of them are probably correct; more of them are at least arguable. This book is strictly about the era after Bretton Woods, so using airplanes as an example invention is a bizarre choice, but sure, whatever, I get the point. My criticism is that paragraphs like this, as written in this book, are not introductions to deeper discussions that question or defend that model of economic and political power. They are simple assertions that stand entirely unsupported. Mohsin routinely writes paragraphs like the above as if they are self-evident, and then immediately moves on to the next anecdote about Treasury dollar policy. Take, for example, the role of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, which roughly means that most international transactions are conducted in dollars and numerous countries and organizations around the world hold large deposits in dollars instead of in their native currency. The conventional wisdom holds that this is a great boon to the US economy, but there are also substantive critiques and questions about that conventional wisdom. You would never know that from this book; Mohsin asserts the conventional wisdom about reserve currencies without so much as a hint that anyone might disagree. For example, one common argument, repeated several times by Mohsin, is that the US can only get away with the amount of deficit spending and cheap borrowing that it does because the dollar is the world's reserve currency. Consider two other countries whose currencies are clearly not the international reserve currency: Japan and the United Kingdom. The current US debt to GDP ratio is about 125% and the current interest rate on US 10-year bonds is about 4.2%. The current Japanese debt to GDP ratio is about 260% and the current interest rate on Japanese 10-year bonds is about 1.2%. The current UK debt to GDP ratio is 160% and the current interest rate on UK 10-year bonds is 4.5%. Are you seeing the dramatic effects of the role of the dollar as reserve currency? Me either. Again, I am not saying that this is a decisive counter-argument. I am not an economist; I'm just some random guy on the Internet who finds macroeconomics interesting and reads a few newsletters. I know the Japanese bond market is unusual in ways I'm not accounting for. There may well be compelling arguments for why reserve currency status matters immensely for US borrowing capacity. My point is not that Mohsin is wrong; my point is that you have to convince me and she doesn't even try. Nowhere in this book is a serious effort to view conventional wisdom with skepticism or confront it with opposing arguments. Instead, this book is full of blithe assertions that happen to support the narrative the author was fed by a bunch of former Treasury officials and does not appear to question in any way. I want books like this to increase my understanding of the world. To do that, they need to show me multiple sides of debates and teach me how to evaluate evidence, not simply reinforce a superficial conventional wisdom. It doesn't help that whatever fact-checking process this book went through left some glaring errors. For example, on the Plaza Accord:
With their central banks working in concert, enough dollars were purchased on the open market to weaken the currency, making American goods more affordable for foreign buyers.
I don't know what happened after the Plaza Accord (I read books like this to find out!), but clearly it wasn't that. This is utter nonsense. Buying dollars on the open market would increase the value of the dollar, not weaken it; this is basic supply and demand that you learn in the first week of a college economics class. This is the type of error that makes me question all the other claims in the book that I can't easily check. Mohsin does offer a more credible explanation of the importance of a reserve currency late in the book, although it's not clear to me that she realizes it: The widespread use of the US dollar gives US government sanctions vast international reach, allowing the US to punish and coerce its enemies through the threat of denying them access to the international financial system. Now we're getting somewhere! This is a more believable argument than a small and possibly imaginary effect on government borrowing costs. It is clear why a bellicose US government, particularly one led by advocates of a unitary executive theory that elevates the US president to a status of near-emperor, want to turn the dollar into a weapon of international control. It's much less obvious how comfortable the rest of the world should be with that concentration of power. This would be a fascinating topic for a journalistic non-fiction book. Some reporter should dive deep into the mechanics of sanctions and ask serious questions about the moral, practical, and diplomatic consequences of this aggressive wielding of US power. One could give it a title like Paper Soldiers that reflected the use of banks and paper currency as foot soldiers enforcing imperious dictates on the rest of the world. Alas, apart from a brief section in which the US scared other countries away from questioning the dollar, Mohsin does not tug at this thread. Maybe someone should write that book someday. As you will have gathered by now, I think this is a bad book and I do not recommend that you read it. Its worst flaw is one that it shares with far too much mainstream US print and TV journalism: the utter credulity of the author. I have the old-fashioned belief that a journalist should be more than a transcriptionist for powerful people. They should be skeptical, they should assume public figures may be lying, they should look for ulterior motives, and they should try to bring the reader closer to some objective truths about the world, wherever they may lie. I have no solution for this degradation of journalism. I'm not even sure that it's a change. There were always reporters eager to transcribe the voice of power into the newspaper, and if we remember the history of journalism differently, that may be because we have elevated the rare exceptions and forgotten the average. But after watching too many journalists I once respected start parroting every piece of nonsense someone tells them, from NFTs to UFOs to the existential threat of AI, I've concluded that the least I can do as a reader is to stop rewarding reporters who cannot approach powerful subjects with skepticism, suspicion, and critical research. I failed in this case, but perhaps I can serve as a warning to others. Rating: 3 out of 10

29 April 2025

Daniel Lange: Weird times ... or how the New York DEC decided the US presidential elections

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. *[DEC]: Department of Environmental Conservation

20 April 2025

Russ Allbery: Review: Up the Down Staircase

Review: Up the Down Staircase, by Bel Kaufman
Publisher: Vintage Books
Copyright: 1964, 1991, 2019
Printing: 2019
ISBN: 0-525-56566-3
Format: Kindle
Pages: 360
Up the Down Staircase is a novel (in an unconventional format, which I'll describe in a moment) about the experiences of a new teacher in a fictional New York City high school. It was a massive best-seller in the 1960s, including a 1967 movie, but seems to have dropped out of the public discussion. I read it from the library sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s and have thought about it periodically ever since. It was Bel Kaufman's first novel. Sylvia Barrett is a new graduate with a master's degree in English, where she specialized in Chaucer. As Up the Down Staircase opens, it is her first day as an English teacher in Calvin Coolidge High School. As she says in a letter to a college friend:
What I really had in mind was to do a little teaching. "And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche" like Chaucer's Clerke of Oxenford. I had come eager to share all I know and feel; to imbue the young with a love for their language and literature; to instruct and to inspire. What happened in real life (when I had asked why they were taking English, a boy said: "To help us in real life") was something else again, and even if I could describe it, you would think I am exaggerating.
She instead encounters chaos and bureaucracy, broken windows and mindless regulations, a librarian who is so protective of her books that she doesn't let any students touch them, a school guidance counselor who thinks she's Freud, and a principal whose sole interaction with the school is to occasionally float through on a cushion of cliches, dispensing utterly useless wisdom only to vanish again.
I want to take this opportunity to extend a warm welcome to all faculty and staff, and the sincere hope that you have returned from a healthful and fruitful summer vacation with renewed vim and vigor, ready to gird your loins and tackle the many important and vital tasks that lie ahead undaunted. Thank you for your help and cooperation in the past and future. Maxwell E. Clarke
Principal
In practice, the school is run by James J. McHare, Clarke's administrative assistant, who signs his messages JJ McH, Adm. Asst. and who Sylvia immediately starts calling Admiral Ass. McHare is a micro-managing control freak who spends the book desperately attempting to impose order over school procedures, the teachers, and the students, with very little success. The title of the book comes from one of his detention slips:
Please admit bearer to class Detained by me for going Up the Down staircase and subsequent insolence. JJ McH
The conceit of this book is that, except for the first and last chapters, it consists only of memos, letters, notes, circulars, and other paper detritus, often said to come from Sylvia's wastepaper basket. Sylvia serves as the first-person narrator through her long letters to her college friend, and through shorter but more frequent exchanges via intraschool memo with Beatrice Schachter, another English teacher at the same school, but much of the book lies outside her narration. The reader has to piece together what's happening from the discarded paper of a dysfunctional institution. Amid the bureaucratic and personal communications, there are frequent chapters with notes from the students, usually from the suggestion box that Sylvia establishes early in the book. These start as chaotic glimpses of often-misspelled wariness or open hostility, but over the course of Up the Down Staircase, some of the students become characters with fragmentary but still visible story arcs. This remains confusing throughout the novel there are too many students to keep them entirely straight, and several of them use pseudonyms for the suggestion box but it's the sort of confusion that feels like an intentional authorial choice. It mirrors the difficulty a teacher has in piecing together and remembering the stories of individual students in overstuffed classrooms, even if (like Sylvia and unlike several of her colleagues) the teacher is trying to pay attention. At the start, Up the Down Staircase reads as mostly-disconnected humor. There is a strong "kids say the darnedest things" vibe, which didn't entirely work for me, but the send-up of chaotic bureaucracy is both more sophisticated and more entertaining. It has the "laugh so that you don't cry" absurdity of a system with insufficient resources, entirely absent management, and colleagues who have let their quirks take over their personalities. Sylvia alternates between incredulity and stubbornness, and I think this book is at its best when it shows the small acts of practical defiance that one uses to carve out space and coherence from mismanaged bureaucracy. But this book is not just a collection of humorous anecdotes about teaching high school. Sylvia is sincere in her desire to teach, which crystallizes around, but is not limited to, a quixotic attempt to reach one delinquent that everyone else in the school has written off. She slowly finds her footing, she has a few breakthroughs in reaching her students, and the book slowly turns into an earnest portrayal of an attempt to make the system work despite its obvious unfitness for purpose. This part of the book is hard to review. Parts of it worked brilliantly; I could feel myself both adjusting my expectations alongside Sylvia to something less idealistic and also celebrating the rare breakthrough with her. Parts of it were weirdly uncomfortable in ways that I'm not sure I enjoyed. That includes Sylvia's climactic conversation with the boy she's been trying to reach, which was weirdly charged and ambiguous in a way that felt like the author's reach exceeding their grasp. One thing that didn't help my enjoyment is Sylvia's relationship with Paul Barringer, another of the English teachers and a frustrated novelist and poet. Everyone who works at the school has found their own way to cope with the stress and chaos, and many of the ways that seem humorous turn out to have a deeper logic and even heroism. Paul's, however, is to retreat into indifference and alcohol. He is a believable character who works with Kaufman's themes, but he's also entirely unlikable. I never understood why Sylvia tolerated that creepy asshole, let alone kept having lunch with him. It is clear from the plot of the book that Kaufman at least partially understands Paul's deficiencies, but that did not help me enjoy reading about him. This is a great example of a book that tried to do something unusual and risky and didn't entirely pull it off. I like books that take a risk, and sometimes Up the Down Staircase is very funny or suddenly insightful in a way that I'm not sure Kaufman could have reached with a more traditional novel. It takes a hard look at what it means to try to make a system work when it's clearly broken and you can't change it, and the way all of the characters arrive at different answers that are much deeper than their initial impressions was subtle and effective. It's the sort of book that sticks in your head, as shown by the fact I bought it on a whim to re-read some 35 years after I first read it. But it's not consistently great. Some parts of it drag, the characters are frustratingly hard to keep track of, and the emotional climax points are odd and unsatisfying, at least to me. I'm not sure whether to recommend it or not, but it's certainly unusual. I'm glad I read it again, but I probably won't re-read it for another 35 years, at least. If you are considering getting this book, be aware that it has a lot of drawings and several hand-written letters. The publisher of the edition I read did a reasonably good job formatting this for an ebook, but some of the pages, particularly the hand-written letters, were extremely hard to read on a Kindle. Consider paper, or at least reading on a tablet or computer screen, if you don't want to have to puzzle over low-resolution images. The 1991 trade paperback had a new introduction by the author, reproduced in the edition I read as an afterward (which is a better choice than an introduction). It is a long and fascinating essay from Kaufman about her experience with the reaction to this book, culminating in a passionate plea for supporting public schools and public school teachers. Kaufman's personal account adds a lot of depth to the story; I highly recommend it. Content note: Self-harm, plus several scenes that are closely adjacent to student-teacher relationships. Kaufman deals frankly with the problems of mostly-poor high school kids, including sexuality, so be warned that this is not the humorous romp that it might appear on first glance. A couple of the scenes made me uncomfortable; there isn't anything explicit, but the emotional overtones can be pretty disturbing. Rating: 7 out of 10

28 March 2025

John Goerzen: Why You Should (Still) Use Signal As Much As Possible

As I write this in March 2025, there is a lot of confusion about Signal messenger due to the recent news of people using Signal in government, and subsequent leaks. The short version is: there was no problem with Signal here. People were using it because they understood it to be secure, not the other way around. Both the government and the Electronic Frontier Foundation recommend people use Signal. This is an unusual alliance, and in the case of the government, was prompted because it understood other countries had a persistent attack against American telephone companies and SMS traffic. So let s dive in. I ll cover some basics of what security is, what happened in this situation, and why Signal is a good idea. This post isn t for programmers that work with cryptography every day. Rather, I hope it can make some of these concepts accessible to everyone else.

What makes communications secure? When most people are talking about secure communications, they mean some combination of these properties:
  1. Privacy - nobody except the intended recipient can decode a message.
  2. Authentication - guarantees that the person you are chatting with really is the intended recipient.
  3. Ephemerality - preventing a record of the communication from being stored. That is, making it more like a conversation around the table than a written email.
  4. Anonymity - keeping your set of contacts to yourself and even obfuscating the fact that communications are occurring.
If you think about it, most people care the most about the first two. In fact, authentication is a key part of privacy. There is an attack known as man in the middle in which somebody pretends to be the intended recipient. The interceptor reads the messages, and then passes them on to the real intended recipient. So we can t really have privacy without authentication. I ll have more to say about these later. For now, let s discuss attack scenarios.

What compromises security? There are a number of ways that security can be compromised. Let s think through some of them:

Communications infrastructure snooping Let s say you used no encryption at all, and connected to public WiFi in a coffee shop to send your message. Who all could potentially see it?
  • The owner of the coffee shop s WiFi
  • The coffee shop s Internet provider
  • The recipient s Internet provider
  • Any Internet providers along the network between the sender and the recipient
  • Any government or institution that can compel any of the above to hand over copies of the traffic
  • Any hackers that compromise any of the above systems
Back in the early days of the Internet, most traffic had no encryption. People were careful about putting their credit cards into webpages and emails because they knew it was easy to intercept them. We have been on a decades-long evolution towards more pervasive encryption, which is a good thing. Text messages (SMS) follow a similar path to the above scenario, and are unencrypted. We know that all of the above are ways people s texts can be compromised; for instance, governments can issue search warrants to obtain copies of texts, and China is believed to have a persistent hack into western telcos. SMS fails all four of our attributes of secure communication above (privacy, authentication, ephemerality, and anonymity). Also, think about what information is collected from SMS and by who. Texts you send could be retained in your phone, the recipient s phone, your phone company, their phone company, and so forth. They might also live in cloud backups of your devices. You only have control over your own phone s retention. So defenses against this involve things like:
  • Strong end-to-end encryption, so no intermediate party even the people that make the app can snoop on it.
  • Using strong authentication of your peers
  • Taking steps to prevent even app developers from being able to see your contact list or communication history
You may see some other apps saying they use strong encryption or use the Signal protocol. But while they may do that for some or all of your message content, they may still upload your contact list, history, location, etc. to a central location where it is still vulnerable to these kinds of attacks. When you think about anonymity, think about it like this: if you send a letter to a friend every week, every postal carrier that transports it even if they never open it or attempt to peak inside will be able to read the envelope and know that you communicate on a certain schedule with that friend. The same can be said of SMS, email, or most encrypted chat operators. Signal s design prevents it from retaining even this information, though nation-states or ISPs might still be able to notice patterns (every time you send something via Signal, your contact receives something from Signal a few milliseconds later). It is very difficult to provide perfect anonymity from well-funded adversaries, even if you can provide very good privacy.

Device compromise Let s say you use an app with strong end-to-end encryption. This takes away some of the easiest ways someone could get to your messages. But it doesn t take away all of them. What if somebody stole your phone? Perhaps the phone has a password, but if an attacker pulled out the storage unit, could they access your messages without a password? Or maybe they somehow trick or compel you into revealing your password. Now what? An even simpler attack doesn t require them to steal your device at all. All they need is a few minutes with it to steal your SIM card. Now they can receive any texts sent to your number - whether from your bank or your friend. Yikes, right? Signal stores your data in an encrypted form on your device. It can protect it in various ways. One of the most important protections is ephemerality - it can automatically delete your old texts. A text that is securely erased can never fall into the wrong hands if the device is compromised later. An actively-compromised phone, though, could still give up secrets. For instance, what if a malicious keyboard app sent every keypress to an adversary? Signal is only as secure as the phone it runs on but still, it protects against a wide variety of attacks.

Untrustworthy communication partner Perhaps you are sending sensitive information to a contact, but that person doesn t want to keep it in confidence. There is very little you can do about that technologically; with pretty much any tool out there, nothing stops them from taking a picture of your messages and handing the picture off.

Environmental compromise Perhaps your device is secure, but a hidden camera still captures what s on your screen. You can take some steps against things like this, of course.

Human error Sometimes humans make mistakes. For instance, the reason a reporter got copies of messages recently was because a participant in a group chat accidentally added him (presumably that participant meant to add someone else and just selected the wrong name). Phishing attacks can trick people into revealing passwords or other sensitive data. Humans are, quite often, the weakest link in the chain.

Protecting yourself So how can you protect yourself against these attacks? Let s consider:
  • Use a secure app like Signal that uses strong end-to-end encryption where even the provider can t access your messages
  • Keep your software and phone up-to-date
  • Be careful about phishing attacks and who you add to chat rooms
  • Be aware of your surroundings; don t send sensitive messages where people might be looking over your shoulder with their eyes or cameras
There are other methods besides Signal. For instance, you could install GnuPG (GPG) on a laptop that has no WiFi card or any other way to connect it to the Internet. You could always type your messages on that laptop, encrypt them, copy the encrypted text to a floppy disk (or USB device), take that USB drive to your Internet computer, and send the encrypted message by email or something. It would be exceptionally difficult to break the privacy of messages in that case (though anonymity would be mostly lost). Even if someone got the password to your secure laptop, it wouldn t do them any good unless they physically broke into your house or something. In some ways, it is probably safer than Signal. (For more on this, see my article How gapped is your air?) But, that approach is hard to use. Many people aren t familiar with GnuPG. You don t have the convenience of sending a quick text message from anywhere. Security that is hard to use most often simply isn t used. That is, you and your friends will probably just revert back to using insecure SMS instead of this GnuPG approach because SMS is so much easier. Signal strikes a unique balance of providing very good security while also being practical, easy, and useful. For most people, it is the most secure option available. Signal is also open source; you don t have to trust that it is as secure as it says, because you can inspect it for yourself. Also, while it s not federated, I previously addressed that.

Government use If you are a government, particularly one that is highly consequential to the world, you can imagine that you are a huge target. Other nations are likely spending billions of dollars to compromise your communications. Signal itself might be secure, but if some other government can add spyware to your phones, or conduct a successful phishing attack, you can still have your communications compromised. I have no direct knowledge, but I think it is generally understood that the US government maintains communications networks that are entirely separate from the Internet and can only be accessed from secure physical locations and secure rooms. These can be even more secure than the average person using Signal because they can protect against things like environmental compromise, human error, and so forth. The scandal in March of 2025 happened because government employees were using Signal rather than official government tools for sensitive information, had taken advantage of Signal s ephemerality (laws require records to be kept), and through apparent human error had directly shared this information with a reporter. Presumably a reporter would have lacked access to the restricted communications networks in the first place, so that wouldn t have been possible. This doesn t mean that Signal is bad. It just means that somebody that can spend billions of dollars on security can be more secure than you. Signal is still a great tool for people, and in many cases defeats even those that can spend lots of dollars trying to defeat it. And remember - to use those restricted networks, you have to go to specific rooms in specific buildings. They are still not as convenient as what you carry around in your pocket.

Conclusion Signal is practical security. Do you want phone companies reading your messages? How about Facebook or X? Have those companies demonstrated that they are completely trustworthy throughout their entire history? I say no. So, go install Signal. It s the best, most practical tool we have.
This post is also available on my website, where it may be periodically updated.

7 February 2025

Emmanuel Kasper: Wireless headset dongle not detected by PulseAudio

For whatever reason, when I plug and unplug my Wireless Headset dongle over USB, it is not always detected by the PulseAudio/Pipewire stack which is running our desktop sound Linux those days. But we can fix that with a restart of the handling daemon, see below.
In PulseAudio terminology an input device (microphone) is called a source, and an output device a sink. When the headset dongle is plugged in, we can see it on the USB bus:
$ lsusb   grep Headset 
Bus 001 Device 094: ID 046d:0af7 Logitech, Inc. Logitech G PRO X 2 Gaming Headset
The device is detected correctly as a Human Interface Device (HID) device
$ dmesg
...
[310230.507591] input: Logitech Logitech G PRO X 2 Gaming Headset as /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:14.0/usb1/1-1/1-1.1/1-1.1.4/1-1.1.4:1.3/0003:046D:0AF7.0060/input/input163
[310230.507762] hid-generic 0003:046D:0AF7.0060: input,hiddev2,hidraw11: USB HID v1.10 Device [Logitech Logitech G PRO X 2 Gaming Headset] on usb-0000:00:14.0-1.1.4/input
However it is not seen in the list of sources / sinks of PulseAudio:
$ pactl list short sinks
58      alsa_output.usb-Lenovo_ThinkPad_Thunderbolt_3_Dock_USB_Audio_000000000000-00.analog-stereo      PipeWire        s16le 2ch 48000Hz       IDLE
62      alsa_output.pci-0000_00_1f.3.analog-stereo      PipeWire        s32le 2ch 48000Hz       SUSPENDED
95      bluez_output.F4_4E_FD_D2_97_1F.1        PipeWire        s16le 2ch 48000Hz       IDLE
This unfriendly list shows my docking station, which as a small jack connector for a wired cable, the built in speaker of my laptop, and a blutooth headset. If I restart Pipewire,
$ systemctl --user restart pipewire
then the headset appears as possible audio output.
$ pactl list short sinks
54      alsa_output.usb-Lenovo_ThinkPad_Thunderbolt_3_Dock_USB_Audio_000000000000-00.analog-stereo      PipeWire        s16le 2ch 48000Hz       SUSPENDED
56      alsa_output.usb-Logitech_Logitech_G_PRO_X_2_Gaming_Headset_0000000000000000-00.analog-stereo    PipeWire        s16le 2ch 48000Hz       SUSPENDED
58      alsa_output.pci-0000_00_1f.3.analog-stereo      PipeWire        s32le 2ch 48000Hz       SUSPENDED
77      bluez_output.F4_4E_FD_D2_97_1F.1        PipeWire        s16le 2ch 48000Hz       SUSPENDED
Once you have set the default input / output device, for me in Gnome, you can check it with:
$ pactl info   egrep '(Sink Source)'
Default Sink: alsa_output.usb-Logitech_Logitech_G_PRO_X_2_Gaming_Headset_0000000000000000-00.analog-stereo
Default Source: alsa_input.usb-Logitech_Logitech_G_PRO_X_2_Gaming_Headset_0000000000000000-00.mono-fallback
Finally let us play some test sounds:
$ speaker-test --test wav --nloops 1 --channels 2
And test some recording, you will hear the output around one second after the speaking (yes that is recorded audio sent over a Unix pipe for playing !):
# don't do this when the output is a speaker, this will create audio feedback (larsen effect)
$ arecord -f cd -   aplay

29 January 2025

Sergio Talens-Oliag: Testing DeepSeek with Ollama and Open WebUI

With all the recent buzz about DeepSeek and its capabilities, I ve decided to give it a try using Ollama and Open WebUI on my work laptop which has an NVIDIA GPU:
$ lspci   grep NVIDIA
0000:01:00.0 3D controller: NVIDIA Corporation GA107GLM [RTX A2000 8GB Laptop GPU]
             (rev a1)
For the installation I initially I looked into the approach suggested on this article, but after reviewing it I decided to go for a docker only approach, as it leaves my system clean and updates are easier.

Step 0: Install dockerI already had it on my machine, so nothing to do here.

Step 1: Install the nvidia-container-toolkit packageAs it is needed to use the NVIDIA GPU with docker I followed the instructions to install the package using apt from the NVIDIA website.

Step 2: Run the Open WebUI container bundled with OllamaI could install ollama directly on linux or run it on docker, but I found out that there is a container with Open WebUI bundled with Ollama, so I decided to use it instead. To start the container I ve executed the following command:
docker run -d \
  -e OLLAMA_HOST="0.0.0.0:11434" -p 127.0.0.1:11434:11434 \
  -p 127.0.0.1:3000:8080 \
  -v ollama:/root/.ollama \
  -v open-webui:/app/backend/data \
  --gpus=all --name open-webui --restart always \
  ghcr.io/open-webui/open-webui:ollama
Once the container is up and running, I can access the Open WebUI on http://localhost:3000/ and the Ollama API on http://localhost:11434/ (I added the OLLAMA_HOST environment variable to be bind the server to all the container IPs, as it is needed to export it to the host).

Step 3: Install DeepSeek-R1 model from Open WebUIAfter creating an admin user on the Open WebUI, I went to the select a model button and asked to download the deepseek-r1 model (at the time of writing this it matches version deepseek-r1:7b, which uses 4.7GB of space). After the download was completed I was able to start chatting with the model on my local machine.

Step 4: Ask a questionThe first question I asked was Can you tell me what is Debian? and the answer I got was:
Debian is one of the most popular Linux distributions used worldwide. It is an
open-source operating system that has been around since 1993 and is known for
its stability, security, and reliability. Debian is widely used in servers, data
centers, and enterprise environments because it provides a robust base platform
with excellent documentation, tools, and community support.
### Key Features of Debian:

1. **History**:
   - Debian started as a project called "Pop!!" (Pootle) led by Lars Knutsen, a
     developer from Denmark.
   - It was initially forked from the Linux distribution Red Hat's RH-Debian to
     gain independence and reduce reliance on Red Hat.

2. **Use Cases**:
   - Debian is commonly used as an operating system for servers due to its
     reliability and ease of use in enterprise environments.
   - It is also used for individual user machines (laptops, desktops) because it
     offers a smooth and stable experience.
   - Debian provides the foundation for many popular derivatives like Ubuntu,
     which are designed for consumer use.

3. **Supported Architectures**:
   - Debian supports all major Linux architectures, including 32-bit and 64-bit
     systems, and runs on a wide range of hardware from old servers to modern
     smartphones.

4. **Package Management**:
   - Debian comes with a robust package management system called **Debian Policy
     Language (DPL)**, which allows users to easily install, update, and manage
     software packages.
   - This makes it easy for users to keep their systems up to date without
     needing to download multiple repositories or deal with version conflicts.

5. **Security Focus**:
   - Debian is known for its strong security practices. It has a reputation for
     being one of the most stable Linux distributions, making it a favorite
     among organizations that prioritize security.
   - The distribution regularly updates its software packages to patch
     vulnerabilities and protect against common attacks.

6. **Compatibility with Servers**:
   - Debian is widely used in data centers because it provides a consistent and
     reliable environment for running servers and applications.
   - Many open-source projects are compatible with Debian, making it an ideal
     choice for developers who want to work on servers or distributed systems.

7. **Popularity**:
   - Debian has a large and active community of users and contributors.
   - It is one of the most widely used Linux distributions in the world, with
     many enterprise organizations relying on it as their primary operating
     system.
### Comparison with Other Distributions:
- **Ubuntu**: Ubuntu is based on Debian but adds graphical user interfaces (like
  Gutsy Gibbon), modern tools (like GIMP and LibreOffice), and integrates with
  Microsoft services.
- **RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux)**: RHEL is a derivative of Red Hat's
  distribution, which forked from Debian. It focuses more heavily on enterprise
  security and support compared to Debian.
### Why Debian?
Debian is popular because:
- It is free and open-source, making it accessible to anyone.
- It provides excellent documentation and tools for system administrators.
- It has a strong focus on stability and reliability.
- It supports a wide range of hardware and software needs.
If you're looking for a reliable and flexible Linux distribution that works well
in both personal and enterprise environments, Debian is an excellent choice.
Haven t tried the same question with ChatGPT, but the History, Package Management and Comparison with Other Distributions sections are hilarious, but they provided me with important data:
  • Now I know that APT is the real Debian Project Leader, what don t know is why we have elections each year ;)
  • Linux Distributions are recursive Debian was a fork of Red Hat, which was a fork of Debian, which was a fork of Red Hat,
As everybody is testing the model I will not talk more about the chat and the results, I just thought that this answer was really funny.

Step 5: Install the DeepSeek Coder and DeepSeek Coder v2 models from Open WebUIAs done before, to download the models I went to the select a model button and asked to download the deepseek-coder and deepseek-coder-v2 models (the default version of version one is said to be really quick and small, while version two is supposed to be better but slower and bigger, so I decided to install both for testing).

Step 6: Integrate Ollama with NeovimSince some months ago I ve been using Github Copilot with Neovim; I don t feel it has been very helpful in the general case, but I wanted to try it and it comes handy when you need to perform repetitive tasks when programming. It seems that there are multiple neovim plugins that support ollama, for now I ve installed and configured the codecompanion plugin on my config.lua file using packer:
require('packer').startup(function()
  [...]
  -- Codecompanion plugin
  use  
    "olimorris/codecompanion.nvim",
    requires =  
      "nvim-lua/plenary.nvim",
      "nvim-treesitter/nvim-treesitter",
     
   
  [...]
end)
[...]
-- --------------------------------
-- BEG: Codecompanion configuration
-- --------------------------------
-- Module setup
local codecompanion = require('codecompanion').setup( 
  adapters =  
    ollama = function()
      return require('codecompanion.adapters').extend('ollama',  
        schema =  
          model =  
            default = 'deepseek-coder-v2:latest',
           
         ,
       )
    end,
   ,
  strategies =  
    chat =   adapter = 'ollama',  ,
    inline =   adapter = 'ollama',  ,
   ,
 )
-- --------------------------------
-- END: Codecompanion configuration
-- --------------------------------
I ve tested it a little bit and it seems to work fine, but I ll have to test it more to see if it is really useful, I ll try to do it on future projects.

ConclusionAt a personal level I don t like nor trust AI systems, but as long as they are treated as tools and not as a magical thing you must trust they have their uses and I m happy to see that open source tools like Ollama and models like DeepSeek available for everyone to use.

24 January 2025

Sam Hartman: Feeling Targeted: Executive Order Ending Wasteful DEIA Efforts

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.

comment count unavailable comments

21 January 2025

Ravi Dwivedi: The Arduous Luxembourg Visa Process

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: 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.

  1. Thanks to Sophie, our point of contact for the conference, for putting me in touch with them.

8 January 2025

John Goerzen: Censorship Is Complicated: What Internet History Says about Meta/Facebook

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.)

27 December 2024

Wouter Verhelst: Writing an extensible JSON-based DSL with Moose

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.

24 December 2024

Russ Allbery: Review: Number Go Up

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

22 December 2024

Russ Allbery: Review: Beyond the Fringe

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

5 December 2024

Reproducible Builds: Reproducible Builds in November 2024

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:
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:
  • 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:
  • 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:

Misc development news

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:

20 November 2024

Russell Coker: Solving Spam and Phishing for Corporations

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.

4 November 2024

Ravi Dwivedi: Asante Kenya for a Good Time

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 :)

29 September 2024

Reproducible Builds: Supporter spotlight: Kees Cook on Linux kernel security

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.

14 July 2024

Ravi Dwivedi: Kenya Visa Process

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: 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.

Next.