|
|
Today I saw the movie God On My Side by Andrew Denton. It’s an interesting movie about the televangelist industry in the US. I expected it to be about the shonky frauds who harm people, there was one scene in the start of a televangelist claiming to cure diabeties (a very dangerous claim that often results in serious injury to the victims of such frauds), but mostly it was about serious evangelists and not about the frauds.
What was scary was the level of advocacy of Armageddon. These people seemed very determined to have a great war between the US and Russia (haven’t they realised that the USSR doesn’t exist any more?). They advocated taking all possible measures to defend Israel (not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons) and didn’t want any compromise with Palestine (no land for peace – after all peace gets in the way of Armageddon).
One insightful comment by an evangelist pointed out that many Christians have gone wrong in their advocacy in being based on what they are against rather than what they are for. It’s a sad trend that most Christians are not able to express any positive things that they are for and only focus on things that they oppose. On most occasions when they say they are for something it is really a disguise for being against something else, EG supporting Family Values means oppressing homosexuals, preventing freedom of speech (bad language), and banning abortions (even for rape victims).
I am looking forward to the DVD release of this. I’m sure that the out-takes and some further footage post release will be interesting.
Above is the day 21 beard picture.
I notice that Planet Linux Australia has been changed to not list the feeds URLs, instead it displays the HTML pages for the blogs.
I believe this is a bad idea as some people want to get a list of feeds for the blogs that are aggregated without having to visit all the blog sites and do it manually. One of the many reasons for doing this is for a blog server that has intermittent net access, it might be down at the moment which prevents me from adding it to my feed list. Another reason is that some people (such as me) want to automatically get a list of all feeds from the planet to add to their own personal planet configuration.
I am blogging this not to criticise the administrators of Planet Linux Australia or even to inform them (I have already send them an email). My point is to prevent other people from doing the same thing. At this time I am not sure whether this change in Planet Linux Australia was deliberate, a result of a bug in Planet, or a mistake in configuration (maybe a default changed unexpectedly).
Another planet related surprise that I received today was to notice that my blog appears to have been removed from Planet Fedora. I’m not sure why this happened, one possibility is that removing my blog was regarded as the solution to the problem of it displaying incorrectly (the better solution being to upgrade the Planet software as was done on Planet Debian). Another possibility is that my post about Gratis vs Libre was regarded as criteria for removal. If my blog was removed from Planet Debian or Planet Linux Australia then I would be able to ask the administrators about this (they have email address links conveniently located). Planet Fedora has no such link, so I guess I’ll have to wait for a blog comment to find out.
I’ve included a day 19 beard picture, I was planning to do one yesterday but a design meeting for a VOIP project ran late and I ran out of time. I’ll write a post about VOIP in the near future.
This PDF (700K) gives a useful summary of the Peak Oil issues. It’s on the Defence in the National Interest (DNI) web site, an interesting site of US conservative political information. Note that this is Conservative, not Neo-Con.
Are blogs and conference speeches inherently about self promotion? If so is that a bad thing?
Recently I mentioned my Planet configuration on a mailing list where most people don’t track new technology. Some people viewed blog entries for the first time as a result of this and then claimed that blogs appeared to be mostly about self-promotion.
It seems to me that people offer conference speeches to promote technology that they believe in (which often equates to self-promotion as such people are well known to be associated with the technology in question), for promoting themself or their own business, or to promote the company that employes them. Of these categories of talk the worst ones are those which are given to promote a company, it’s especially bad when a talk starts with “the guy who was supposed to give this talk was called to a client so I’m doing it instead” – this indicates how much the company cares for the quality of the talk. Someone who is promoting themself will care about doing a reasonable job. Someone who promotes their favourite technology will usually give a great talk! But corporations rarely get the idea that a good quality talk which makes little mention of their products is the most effective advertisement. Of recent times Google seems to be the best example of a company which gets this idea, at many conferences there are Google employees giving talks about various technologies not directly related to Google operations without any direct sales pitch. Everyone who attends such talks gets the message – Google has hired many smart people and has them working on cool things.
It seems that blogs are often written with similar motivations to conference presentations but with no control over the topic and less quality control. The difference of course is that a blog doesn’t get a forum the way a talk which is accepted by a conference will. So a corporate blog has to be really good to get readers.
PS I’ve added the day15 beard picture to this entry, it was taken on the 22nd of October, but I had only just got around to GIMPing it and uploading it.
It’s interesting to note in this press release from the Australian Greens that Dr Ziggy Switkowski (head of the Prime Minister’s nuclear taskforce) that nuclear power is not economically viable in Australia without a carbon tax. As the government has refused to consider such a carbon tax this seems to rule out nuclear power for Australia. I expect that other countries have similar economics.
I imagine that nuclear power would be viable for a country that lacks adequate wind for wind power, is not very sunny so solar power doesn’t work, has few rivers so hydro-electric power can’t be used, and which has no option of geo-thermal power. Is there such a country?
Toyota in the US has released a hybrid Camry which seems to be the larger Prius that many people have wanted. Since it’s release the Prius has been greatly desired by people who like technology and the environment. The only down-side to the Prius is that it is a small car and doesn’t have as much room for baggage or passengers as you might desire.
The new Camry Hybrid has the Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) that gives the Prius it’s smooth ride, the keyless start (optional), DVD navigation via a large screen, six airbags, and tire pressure monitoring.
The above review states that the test car shuddered when the engine started and made odd mechanical noises. It’s not indicated in the article but I suspect that the car may have been an early production test model rather than the type of car you will get if you actually buy one. The Prius I drove did not shudder or make any odd noises (in fact hardly any noise that I could hear). Maybe if I drove a Prius in a country area I would hear some noises, but in the city (which the Prius is designed for) the Prius didn’t make any
engine sounds I could here. I expect that the hybrid Camry will perform as well as the Prius in this regard.
The review describes the hybrid Camry as giving 35mpg with a driving pattern that was not the most fuel efficient, that is roughly 6.7 liters per 100Km which is more than the quoted rate for some small cars. The four-door Smart cars are advertised as using 5.8L/100Km and Diesel allows even better efficiency. But if you want the space of a Camry then 7.1L/100Km is fairly good, especially considering that you could reduce that by driving more slowly. Also we have to consider that the primary aim of the Prius design (and presumably the design of the hybrid Camry) is to protect the environment by reducing the poisonous emissions, this may reduce the fuel efficiency slightly (the aim of reducing emissions is not always compatable with the aim of reducing fuel use).
There are apparently 3.785 liters to a US gallon. A US mile has 1760 yards and a yard is apparently 0.9144m, so a US mile would be 1760*0.9144 = 1609 meters or 1.609Km.
3.785*100/1.609/X
To convert MPG (the US measurement of fuel use when based on a US mile and a US gallon) to L/100KM (the Australian way of measuring fuel use) you use the above formula (where X is the MPG rating). I included this information here because I couldn’t find it anywhere else.
I was going to post this before but was side-tracked by the flash issue.
Also I’ve included a beard picture for day 12 (yesterday).
I believe that adding blogging technology to bug tracking systems (such as the Debian BTS and the Red Hat Bugzilla) offers significant benefits for users and developers.
It seems that there is only one significant difference between the features offered by blog software and the features required by bug trackers, blog entries are owned by the person making the post (the owner of the blog) and BTS entries are owned by the package owner. This is a minor technical difference, adding the ability for anonymous users (or users who have authenticated via an email address or other method) to create new entries in a blog owned by someone else is a minor feature change. Once the entry is created only comments would be accepted, and comments could be made in the usual manner with moderation etc.
The benefits of using blogging software (or extending current BTS systems) would be to have RSS feeds of bug reports and comments on bugs, include a single feed of all bug reports (IE blog entries) and updates (IE comments on blog entries) for a single blog (IE package) – this functionality doesn’t seem to be common in blog software but surely will be soon.
This would allow Planets of recent bug reports in distributions or in areas. EG a SE Linux planet installation could syndicate the bug feeds for packages in Fedora and Debian as well as other sources of SE Linux information. The SE Linux bug feeds could include all bugs with the selinux tag in all blogs on the BTS, thus a single Planet configuration could easily cover all new development and debugging.
Another configuration possibility would be to have a single blog for all bugs in a distribution and to have tags for each package, this would become messy though as tags have to be used for issues that are not specific to packages (EG a “selinux” tag would list bugs in all packages that relate to SE Linux).
Tags could be changed by any user (possibly with some restrictions), and there could be special tags for release-critical bugs or for bugs in different stages of QA (for example the Red Hat Enterprise Linux approval process could be managed by adding certain restricted tags to the bug – this would also allow getting a feed of all bugs that have passed certain approval milestones). This would make it easy to get a list of all bugs in a certain approval category.
Current BTS systems such as the Debian BTS and the Red Hat Bugzilla could be extended to syndicate content. As they already have web interfaces and support automatically sending updates by email it should be easy to add the basic level of such support to them. But it might give a better result to go the other way and modify a multi-user blog system such as WordPress-MU to have extra features for bug management.
BTS systems typically have bug ID numbers that increase sequentially while blog software typically gives something like http://blog.example.com/YYYY/MM/blog-entry-name.html when it’s often more convenient to have something like http://bug.example.com/number. Of course it would not be difficult to have a little database that allows creating sequential numbers to map to arbitrary URLs in a similar manner to tinyurl.com. This could be either integrated into blog software (so that it says “bug #1234 has been created” or be available on demand (click a link to get a sequential number assigned). Incidentally using characters and digits for the short name of the bug (as done by tinyurl.com) would allow four characters to represent 1679616 bugs, this is enough for all bugs in the Debian and Red Hat bug databases combined. With tinyurl type technology there is nothing preventing us from having a single system creating unique IDs for all bugs in all distributions of Linux with a four character index (which is easier to remember than the 6 sigit numbers used in Debian and Red Hat at the moment).
I realise that most blog software will store the entries in a database which has sequential numbers assigned. So doing a database lookup to convert a human-readable URL into a sequential index when we have just done another database lookup to convert a sequential index into a human readable form is inefficient, but that’s the way of things, computers do things inefficiently so that humans can work in ways that are efficient for them.
Note that throughout this post I refer to the Planet aggregation system, but really any of the aggregation systems can be used. One of the benefits of this is that people can use mailing lists, Google’s reader, Planet, or any other reader they wish with the feeds. RSS feeds can be read by many programs and the user gets to choose which works best for them.
In response to my previous post someone pointed out that MX records have an obvious benefit of offering multiple servers at different priority levels.
I don’t believe that this is a benefit for many machines on the modern Internet. Most systems that have secondary MX records implement them poorly, they have less SPAM checks on the secondary MX server, and it often doesn’t even have a canonical user-list! This is a really serious problem, spammers apparently often target the secondary MX server (I don’t have evidence for this but many people assert it to be true and it would obviously work so is likely to be true) and it’s well known that spammers often guess account names (a quick scan of the logs of any mail server will prove this). These factors combine to make a secondary MX server without a canonical list of user-names a serious spam problem, it will receive mail and then bounce it to innocent third parties (the vast majority of spam has a forged sender nowadays).
If you have the ability to run a well configured secondary MX server with a canonical list of valid account names (which must be maintained independently of the master mail server for obvious reasons) then there is the issue of why you would want to do so. What problem does it solve? In the early days of the Internet mail storage machines were often end-nodes on the network, many hops away from the central well-connected machines. This meant that sometimes connections would time-out or the hop count (which was smaller then than it is now) would be exceeded. Having a well connected server being a secondary MX server was a significant advantage for a small mail server in those times (by todays servers almost all the mail servers of 1993 are small and the biggest servers of 1993 were medium sized by today’s standards).
I just did a quick search for machines with secondary MX records (IE multiple MX records at different priorities). The only significant mail service with such configuration that I could find was gmail. Hotmail.com, ibm.com, microsoft.com, aol.com, and zonnet.nl all have multiple MX records at the same priority – this is a cluster of primary mail servers not a primary/secondary configuration. The evidence suggests that mail servers such as hotmail.com do not benefit from a secondary MX record, so I doubt that any other domain needs it either.
In response to a comment on my previous post, I have previously mentioned in mailing lists the issue of spammers attacking secondary MX servers, but I couldn’t see it when reviewing my blog archives.
Above is day 10 of the beard.
One issue that has been the topic of some pointless discussion is whether a mail server should have an A record or an MX record. Mail can be delivered to a domain that has no MX record but simply an A record pointing to an IP address. But the most common practice is to have an MX record pointing to the name of the machine that serves the mail. A common use for this is to have a bulk mail hosting machine with multiple MX records pointing at it, which then allows you to have matching forward and reverse DNS entries for the machine name.
If you have no MX record for a domain then Postfix will do the following DNS requests:
IP postfix.34245 > DNS.domain: 3448+ MX? example.com. (32)
IP postfix.34261 > DNS.domain: 50123+ A? example.com. (32)
If you have an MX record then it does the following:
IP postfix.34675 > DNS.domain: 29942+ MX? example.com. (32)
IP postfix.34675 > DNS.domain: 33294+ A? mail.example.com. (37)
Now if there are multiple domains on a bulk mail hosting system then the A record might already be in a local cache on the sending machine, so having bulk mail hosting with MX records may reduce the number of DNS lookups, with the minumum number of lookups being half plus one.
If there is no bulk mail hosting then an MX record would still offer some slight benefits if the positive responses are cached for longer than negative responses. This would mean less lookups which gives faster and more reliable delivery of mail plus being more friendly to the net. I don’t know what the cache behaviour is in this regard so I’m not sure if this would actually give a benefit (I’m sure someone will comment with the answer).
Now regardless of these issues I think that using an MX record is the better option. It’s what most software expects and saves you from the excitement of discovering corner case bugs in various software that’s out there on the net.
The beard is still growing steadily, and I’m still waiting for the beardly powers that some of the bearded delegates at LCA 2006 assured me that I would develop.
|
|
