etbe - Russell Coker

A Long Term Review of Android Devices

Xperia X10

My first Android device was The Sony Ericsson Xperia X10i [1]. One of the reasons I chose it was for the large 4″ screen, nowadays the desirable phones (the ones that are marketed as premium products) are all bigger than that (the Galaxy S6 is 5.1″) and even the slightly less expensive phones are bigger. At the moment Aldi is advertising an Android phone with a 4.5″ screen for $129. But at the time there was nothing better in the price range that I was willing to pay.

I devoted a lot of my first review to the default apps for SMS and Email. Shortly after that I realised that the default email app is never going to be adequate (I now use K9 mail) and the SMS app is barely adequate (but I mostly use instant messaging). I’ve got used to the fact that most apps that ship with an Android device are worthless, the camera app and the app to make calls are the only built in apps I regularly use nowadays.

In the bug list from my first review the major issue was lack of Wifi tethering which was fixed by an update to Android 2.3. Unfortunately Android 2.3 ran significantly more slowly which decreased the utility of the phone.

The construction of the phone is very good. Over the last 2 years the 2 Xperia X10 phones I own have been on loan to various relatives, many of whom aren’t really into technology and can’t be expected to take good care of things. But they have not failed in any way. Apart from buying new batteries there has been no hardware failure in either phone. While 2 is a small sample size I haven’t see any other Android device last nearly as long without problems. Unfortunately I have no reason to believe that Sony has continued to design devices as well.

The Xperia X10 phones crash more often than most Android phones with spontaneous reboots being a daily occurrence. While that is worse than any other Android device I’ve used it’s not much worse.

My second review of the Xperia X10 had a section about ways of reducing battery use [2]. Wow, I’d forgotten how much that sucked! When I was last using the Xperia X10 the Life360 app that my wife and I use to track each other was taking 15% of the battery, on more recent phones the same app takes about 2%. The design of modern phones seems to be significantly more energy efficient for background tasks and the larger brighter displays use more energy instead.

My father is using one of the Xperia phones now, when I give him a better phone to replace it I will have both as emergency Wifi access points. They aren’t useful for much else nowadays.

Samsung Galaxy S

In my first review of the Galaxy S I criticised it for being thin, oddly shaped, and slippery [3]. After using it for a while I found the shape convenient as I could easily determine the bottom of the phone in my pocket and hold it the right way up before looking at it. This is a good feature for a phone that’s small enough to rotate in my pocket – the Samsung Galaxy Note series of phones is large enough to not rotate in a pocket. In retrospect I think that being slippery isn’t a big deal as almost everyone buys a phone case anyway. But it would still be better for use on a desk if the bulge was at the top.

I wrote about my Galaxy S failing [4]. Two of my relatives had problems with those phones too. Including a warranty replacement I’ve seen 4 of those phones in use and only one worked reliably. The one that worked reliably is now being used by my mother, it’s considerably faster than the Xperia X10 because it has more RAM and will probably remain in regular use until it breaks.

CyanogenMod

I tried using CyanogenMod [5]. The phone became defective 9 months later so even though CyanogenMod is great I don’t think I got good value for the amount of time spent installing it. I haven’t tried replacing the OS of an Android phone since then.

I really wish that they would start manufacturing phones that can have the OS replaced as easily as a PC.

Samsung Galaxy S3 and Wireless Charging

The Galaxy S3 was the first phone I owned which competes with phones that are currently on sale [6]. A relative bought one at the same time as me and her phone is running well with no problems. But my S3 had some damage to it’s USB port which means that the vast majority of USB cables don’t charge it (only Samsung cables can be expected to work).

After I bought the S3 I bought a Qi wireless phone charging device [7]. One of the reasons for buying that is so if a phone gets a broken USB port then I can still use it. It’s ironic that the one phone that had a damaged USB port also failed to work correctly with the Qi card installed.

The Qi charger is gathering dust.

One significant benefit of the S3 (and most Samsung phones) is that it has a SD socket. I installed a 32G SD card in the S3 and now one of my relatives is happily using it as a media player.

Nexus 4

I bought a Nexus 4 [8] for my wife as she needed a better phone but didn’t feel like paying for a Galaxy S3. The Nexus 4 is a nice phone in many ways but the lack of storage is a serious problem. At the moment I’m only keeping it to use with Google Cardboard, I will lend it to my parents soon.

In retrospect I made a mistake buying the Nexus 4. If I had spent a little more money on another Galaxy S3 then I would have had a phone with a longer usage life as well as being able to swap accessories with my wife.

The Nexus 4 seems reasonably solid, the back of the case (which is glass) broke on mine after a significant impact but the phone continues to work well. That’s a tribute to the construction of the phone and also the Ringke Fusion case [9].

Generally the Nexus 4 is a good phone so I don’t regret buying it. I just think that the Galaxy S3 was a better choice.

Galaxy Note 2

I got a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 in mid 2013 [10]. In retrospect it was a mistake to buy the Galaxy S3, the Note series is better suited to my use. If I had known how good it is to have a larger phone I’d have bought the original Galaxy Note when it was first released.

Generally everything is good about the Note 2. While it only has 16G of storage (which isn’t much by today’s standards) it has an SD socket to allow expansion. It’s currently being used by a relative as a small tablet. With a 32G SD card it can fit a lot of movies.

Bluetooth Speakers

I received Bluetooth speakers in late 2013 [11]. I was very impressed by them but ended up not using them for a while. After they gathered dust for about a year I started using them again recently. While nothing has changed regarding my review of the Hive speakers (which I still like a lot) it seems that my need for such things isn’t as great as I thought. One thing that made me start using the Bluetooth speakers again is that my phone case blocks the sound from my latest phone and makes it worse than phone sound usually is.

I bought Bluetooth speakers for some relatives as presents, the relatives seemed to appreciate them but I wonder how much they actually use them.

Nexus 5

The Nexus 5 [12] is a nice phone. When I first reviewed it there were serious problems with overheating when playing Ingress. I haven’t noticed such problems recently so I think that an update to Android might have made it more energy efficient. In that review I was very impressed by the FullHD screen and it made me want a Note 3, at the time I planned to get a Note 3 in the second half of 2014 (which I did).

Galaxy Note 3

Almost a year ago I bought the Samsung Galaxy Note 3 [13]. I’m quite happy with it at the moment but I don’t have enough data for a long term review of it. The only thing to note so far is that in my first review I was unhappy with the USB 3 socket as that made it more difficult to connect a USB cable in the dark. I’ve got used to the socket and I can now reliably plug it in at night with ease.

I wrote about Rivers jeans being the only brand that can fit a Samsung Galaxy Note series phone in the pocket [14]. The pockets of my jeans have just started wearing out and I think that it’s partly due to the fact that I bought a Armourdillo Hybrid case [15] for my Note 3. I’ve had the jeans for over 3 years with no noticable wear apart from the pockets starting to wear out after 10 months of using the Armourdillo case.

I don’t think that the Armourdillo case is bad, but the fact that it has deep grooves and hard plastic causes it to rub more on material when I take the phone out of my pocket. As I check my phone very frequently this causes some serious wear. This isn’t necessarily a problem given that a phone costs 20* more than a pair of jeans, if the case was actually needed to save the phone then it would be worth having some jeans wear out. But I don’t think I need more protection than a gel case offers.

Another problem is that the Armourdillo case is very difficult to remove. This isn’t a problem if you don’t need access to your phone, IE if you use a phone like the Nexus 5 that doesn’t permit changing batteries or SD cards. But if you need to change batteries, SD cards, etc then it’s really annoying. My wife seems quite happy with her Armoudillo case but I don’t think it was a good choice for me. I’m considering abandoning it and getting one of the cheap gel cases.

The sound on the Note 3 is awful. I don’t know how much of that is due to a limitation in the speaker and how much is due to the case. It’s quite OK for phone calls but not much good for music.

Tablets

I’m currently on my third tablet. One was too cheap and nasty so I returned it. Another was still cheap and I hardly ever used it. The third is a Galaxy Note 10 which works really well. I guess the lesson is to buy something worthwhile so you can use it. A tablet that’s slower and has less storage than a phone probably isn’t going to get used much.

Phone Longevity

I owned the Xperia X10 for 22 months before getting the Galaxy S3. As that included 9 months of using a Galaxy S I only had 13 months of use out of that phone before lending it to other people.

The Galaxy S3 turned out to be a mistake as I replaced it in only 7 months.

I had the Note 2 for 15 months before getting the Note 3.

I have now had the Note 3 for 11 months and have no plans for a replacement any time soon – this is the longest I’ve owned an Android phone and been totally satisfied with it. Also I only need to use it for another 4 months to set a record for using an Android phone.

The Xperia was “free” as part of a telco contract. The other phones were somewhere between $500 and $600 each when counting the accessories (case, battery, etc) that I bought with them. So in 4 years and 7 months I’ve spent somewhere between $1500 and $1800 on phones plus the cost of the Xperia that was built in to the contract. The Xperia probably cost about the same so I’ll assume that I spent $2000 on phones and accessories. This seems like a lot. However that averages out to about $1.20 per day (and hopefully a lot less if my Note 3 lasts another couple of years). I could justify $1.20 per day for either the amount of paid work I do on Android phones or the amount of recreational activities that I perform (the Galaxy S3 was largely purchased for Ingress).

Conclusion

I think that phone companies will be struggling to maintain sales of high end phones in the future. When I chose the Xperia X10 I knew I was making a compromise, the screen resolution was an obvious limitation on the use of the device (even though it was one of the best devices available). The storage in the Xperia was also a limitation. Now FullHD is the minimum resolution for any sort of high-end device and 32G of storage is small. I think that most people would struggle to observe any improvement over a Nexus 5 or Note 3 at this time. I think that this explains the massive advertising campaign for the Galaxy S6 that is going on at the moment. Samsung can’t sell the S6 based on it being better than previous phones because there’s not much that they can do to make it obviously better. So they try and sell it for the image.

The Purpose of a Code of Conduct

On a private mailing list there have been some recent discussions about a Code of Conduct which demonstrate some great misunderstandings. The misunderstandings don’t seem particular to that list so it’s worthy of a blog post. Also people tend to think more about what they do when their actions will be exposed to a wider audience so hopefully people who read this post will think before they respond.

Jokes

The first discussion concerned the issue of making “jokes”. When dealing with the treatment of other people (particularly minority groups) the issue of “jokes” is a common one. It’s fairly common for people in positions of power to make “jokes” about people with less power and then complain if someone disapproves. The more extreme examples of this concern hate words which are strongly associated with violence, one of the most common is a word used to describe gay men which has often been associated with significant violence and murder. Men who are straight and who conform to the stereotypes of straight men don’t have much to fear from that word while men who aren’t straight will associate it with a death threat and tend not to find any amusement in it.

Most minority groups have words that are known to be associated with hate crimes. When such words are used they usually send a signal that the minority groups in question aren’t welcome. The exception is when the words are used by other members of the group in question. For example if I was walking past a biker bar and heard someone call out “geek” or “nerd” I would be a little nervous (even though geeks/nerds have faced much less violence than most minority groups). But at a Linux conference my reaction would be very different. As a general rule you shouldn’t use any word that has a history of being used to attack any minority group other than one that you are a member of, so black rappers get to use a word that was historically used by white slave-owners but because I’m white I don’t get to sing along to their music. As an aside we had a discussion about such rap lyrics on the Linux Users of Victoria mailing list some time ago, hopefully most people think I’m stating the obvious here but some people need a clear explanation.

One thing that people should consider “jokes” is the issue of punching-down vs punching-up [1] (there are many posts about this topic, I linked to the first Google hit which seems quite good). The basic concept is that making jokes about more powerful people or organisations is brave while making “jokes” about less powerful people is cowardly and serves to continue the exclusion of marginalised people. When I raised this issue in the mailing list discussion a group of men immediately complained that they might be bullied by lots of less powerful people making jokes about them. One problem here is that powerful people tend to be very thin skinned due to the fact that people are usually nice to them. While the imaginary scenario of less powerful people making jokes about rich white men might be unpleasant if it happened in person, it wouldn’t compare to the experience of less powerful people who are the target of repeated “jokes” in addition to all manner of other bad treatment. Another problem is that the impact of a joke depends on the power of the person who makes it, EG if your boss makes a “joke” about you then you have to work on your CV, if a colleague or subordinate makes a joke then you can often ignore it.

Who does a Code of Conduct Protect

One member of the mailing list wrote a long and very earnest message about his belief that the CoC was designed to protect him from off-topic discussions. He analysed the results of a CoC on that basis and determined that it had failed due to the number of off-topic messages on the mailing lists he subscribes to. Being so self-centered is strongly correlated with being in a position of power, he seems to sincerely believe that everything should be about him, that he is entitled to all manner of protection and that any rule which doesn’t protect him is worthless.

I believe that the purpose of all laws and regulations should be to protect those who are less powerful, the more powerful people can usually protect themselves. The benefit that powerful people receive from being part of a system that is based on rules is that organisations (clubs, societies, companies, governments, etc) can become larger and achieve greater things if people can trust in the system. When minority groups are discouraged from contributing and when people need to be concerned about protecting themselves from attack the scope of an organisation is reduced. When there is a certain minimum standard of treatment that people can expect then they will be more willing to contribute and more able to concentrate on their contributions when they don’t expect to be attacked.

The Public Interest

When an organisation declares itself to be acting in the public interest (EG by including “Public Interest” in the name of the organisation) I think that we should expect even better treatment of minority groups. One might argue that a corporation should protect members of minority groups for the sole purpose of making more money (it has been proven that more diverse groups produce better quality work). But an organisation that’s in the “Public Interest” should be expected to go way beyond that and protect members of minority groups as a matter of principle.

When an organisation is declared to be operating in the “Public Interest” I believe that anyone who’s so unable to control their bigotry that they can’t refrain from being bigoted on the mailing lists should not be a member.

[1] http://reasonableconversation.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/punching-up/

BTRFS Training

Some years ago Barwon South Water gave LUV 3 old 1RU Sun servers for any use related to free software. We gave one of those servers to the Canberra makerlab and another is used as the server for the LUV mailing lists and web site and the 3rd server was put aside for training. The servers have hot-swap 15,000rpm SAS disks – IE disks that have a replacement cost greater than the budget we have for hardware. As we were given a spare 70G disk (and a 140G disk can replace a 70G disk) the LUV server has 2*70G disks and the 140G disks (which can’t be replaced) are in the server for training.

On Saturday I ran a BTRFS and ZFS training session for the LUV Beginners’ SIG. This was inspired by the amount of discussion of those filesystems on the mailing list and the amount of interest when we have lectures on those topics.

The training went well, the meeting was better attended than most Beginners’ SIG meetings and the people who attended it seemed to enjoy it. One thing that I will do better in future is clearly documenting commands that are expected to fail and documenting how to login to the system. The users all logged in to accounts on a Xen server and then ssh’d to root at their DomU. I think that it would have saved a bit of time if I had aliased commands like “btrfs” to “echo you must login to your virtual server first” or made the shell prompt at the Dom0 include instructions to login to the DomU.

Each user or group had a virtual machine. The server has 32G of RAM and I ran 14 virtual servers that each had 2G of RAM. In retrospect I should have configured fewer servers and asked people to work in groups, that would allow more RAM for each virtual server and also more RAM for the Dom0. The Dom0 was running a BTRFS RAID-1 filesystem and each virtual machine had a snapshot of the block devices from my master image for the training. Performance was quite good initially as the OS image was shared and fit into cache. But when many users were corrupting and scrubbing filesystems performance became very poor. The disks performed well (sustaining over 100 writes per second) but that’s not much when shared between 14 active users.

The ZFS part of the tutorial was based on RAID-Z (I didn’t use RAID-5/6 in BTRFS because it’s not ready to use and didn’t use RAID-1 in ZFS because most people want RAID-Z). Each user had 5*4G virtual disks (2 for the OS and 3 for BTRFS and ZFS testing). By the end of the training session there was about 76G of storage used in the filesystem (including the space used by the OS for the Dom0), so each user had something like 5G of unique data.

We are now considering what other training we can run on that server. I’m thinking of running training on DNS and email. Suggestions for other topics would be appreciated. For training that’s not disk intensive we could run many more than 14 virtual machines, 60 or more should be possible.

Below are the notes from the BTRFS part of the training, anyone could do this on their own if they substitute 2 empty partitions for /dev/xvdd and /dev/xvde. On a Debian/Jessie system all that you need to do to get ready for this is to install the btrfs-tools package. Note that this does have some risk if you make a typo. An advantage of doing this sort of thing in a virtual machine is that there’s no possibility of breaking things that matter.

Making the filesystem
1. Make the filesystem, this makes a filesystem that spans 2 devices (note you must use the-f option if there was already a filesystem on those devices):
  mkfs.btrfs /dev/xvdd /dev/xvde
2. Use file(1) to see basic data from the superblocks:
  file -s /dev/xvdd /dev/xvde
3. Mount the filesystem (can mount either block device, the kernel knows they belong together):
  mount /dev/xvdd /mnt/tmp
4. See a BTRFS df of the filesystem, shows what type of RAID is used:
  btrfs filesystem df /mnt/tmp
5. See more information about FS device use:
  btrfs filesystem show /mnt/tmp
6. Balance the filesystem to change it to RAID-1 and verify the change, note that some parts of the filesystem were single and RAID-0 before this change):
  btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid1 -mconvert=raid1 -sconvert=raid1 –force /mnt/tmp
  btrfs filesystem df /mnt/tmp
7. See if there are any errors, shouldn’t be any (yet):
  btrfs device stats /mnt/tmp
8. Copy some files to the filesystem:
  cp -r /usr /mnt/tmp
9. Check the filesystem for basic consistency (only checks checksums):
  btrfs scrub start -B -d /mnt/tmp
Online corruption
1. Corrupt the filesystem:
  dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/xvdd bs=1024k count=2000 seek=50
2. Scrub again, should give a warning about errors:
  btrfs scrub start -B /mnt/tmp
3. Check error count:
  btrfs device stats /mnt/tmp
4. Corrupt it again:
  dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/xvdd bs=1024k count=2000 seek=50
5. Unmount it:
  umount /mnt/tmp
6. In another terminal follow the kernel log:
  tail -f /var/log/kern.log
7. Mount it again and observe it correcting errors on mount:
  mount /dev/xvdd /mnt/tmp
8. Run a diff, observe kernel error messages and observe that diff reports no file differences:
  diff -ru /usr /mnt/tmp/usr/
9. Run another scrub, this will probably correct some errors which weren’t discovered by diff:
  btrfs scrub start -B -d /mnt/tmp
Offline corruption
1. Umount the filesystem, corrupt the start, then try mounting it again which will fail because the superblocks were wiped:
  umount /mnt/tmp
  dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/xvdd bs=1024k count=200
  mount /dev/xvdd /mnt/tmp
  mount /dev/xvde /mnt/tmp
2. Note that the filesystem was not mountable due to a lack of a superblock. It might be possible to recover from this but that’s more advanced so we will restore the RAID.
  Mount the filesystem in a degraded RAID mode, this allows full operation.
  mount /dev/xvde /mnt/tmp -o degraded
3. Add /dev/xvdd back to the RAID:
  btrfs device add /dev/xvdd /mnt/tmp
4. Show the filesystem devices, observe that xvdd is listed twice, the missing device and the one that was just added:
  btrfs filesystem show /mnt/tmp
5. Remove the missing device and observe the change:
  btrfs device delete missing /mnt/tmp
  btrfs filesystem show /mnt/tmp
6. Balance the filesystem, not sure this is necessary but it’s good practice to do it when in doubt:
  btrfs balance start /mnt/tmp
7. Umount and mount it, note that the degraded option is not needed:
  umount /mnt/tmp
  mount /dev/xvdd /mnt/tmp
Experiment
1. Experiment with the “btrfs subvolume create” and “btrfs subvolume delete” commands (which act like mkdir and rmdir).
2. Experiment with “btrfs subvolume snapshot SOURCE DEST” and “btrfs subvolume snapshot -r SOURCE DEST” for creating regular and read-only snapshots of other subvolumes (including the root).

RAID Pain

One of my clients has a NAS device. Last week they tried to do what should have been a routine RAID operation, they added a new larger disk as a hot-spare and told the RAID array to replace one of the active disks with the hot-spare. The aim was to replace the disks one at a time to grow the array. But one of the other disks had an error during the rebuild and things fell apart.

I was called in after the NAS had been rebooted when it was refusing to recognise the RAID. The first thing that occurred to me is that maybe RAID-5 isn’t a good choice for the RAID. While it’s theoretically possible for a RAID rebuild to not fail in such a situation (the data that couldn’t be read from the disk with an error could have been regenerated from the disk that was being replaced) it seems that the RAID implementation in question couldn’t do it. As the NAS is running Linux I presume that at least older versions of Linux have the same problem. Of course if you have a RAID array that has 7 disks running RAID-6 with a hot-spare then you only get the capacity of 4 disks. But RAID-6 with no hot-spare should be at least as reliable as RAID-5 with a hot-spare.

Whenever you recover from disk problems the first thing you want to do is to make a read-only copy of the data. Then you can’t make things worse. This is a problem when you are dealing with 7 disks, fortunately they were only 3TB disks and only each had 2TB in use. So I found some space on a ZFS pool and bought a few 6TB disks which I formatted as BTRFS filesystems. For this task I only wanted filesystems that support snapshots so I could work on snapshots not on the original copy.

I expect that at some future time I will be called in when an array of 6+ disks of the largest available size fails. This will be a more difficult problem to solve as I don’t own any system that can handle so many disks.

I copied a few of the disks to a ZFS filesystem on a Dell PowerEdge T110 running kernel 3.2.68. Unfortunately that system seems to have a problem with USB, when copying from 4 disks at once each disk was reading about 10MB/s and when copying from 3 disks each disk was reading about 13MB/s. It seems that the system has an aggregate USB bandwidth of 40MB/s – slightly greater than USB 2.0 speed. This made the process take longer than expected.

One of the disks had a read error, this was presumably the cause of the original RAID failure. dd has the option conv=noerror to make it continue after a read error. This initially seemed good but the resulting file was smaller than the source partition. It seems that conv=noerror doesn’t seek the output file to maintain input and output alignment. If I had a hard drive filled with plain ASCII that MIGHT even be useful, but for a filesystem image it’s worse than useless. The only option was to repeatedly run dd with matching skip and seek options incrementing by 1K until it had passed the section with errors.

for n in /dev/loop[0-6] ; do echo $n ; mdadm –examine -v -v –scan $n|grep Events ; done

Once I had all the images I had to assemble them. The Linux Software RAID didn’t like the array because not all the devices had the same event count. The way Linux Software RAID (and probably most RAID implementations) work is that each member of the array has an event counter that is incremented when disks are added, removed, and when data is written. If there is an error then after a reboot only disks with matching event counts will be used. The above command shows the Events count for all the disks.

Fortunately different event numbers aren’t going to stop us. After assembling the array (which failed to run) I ran “mdadm -R /dev/md1” which kicked some members out. I then added them back manually and forced the array to run. Unfortunately attempts to write to the array failed (presumably due to mismatched event counts).

Now my next problem is that I can make a 10TB degraded RAID-5 array which is read-only but I can’t mount the XFS filesystem because XFS wants to replay the journal. So my next step is to buy another 2*6TB disks to make a RAID-0 array to contain an image of that XFS filesystem.

Finally backups are a really good thing…

Smart Phones Should Measure Charge Speed

My first mobile phone lasted for days between charges. I never really found out how long it’s battery would last because there was no way that I could use it to deplete the charge in any time that I could spend awake. Even if I had managed to run the battery out the phone was designed to accept 4*AA batteries (it’s rechargeable battery pack was exactly that size) so I could buy spare batteries at any store.

Modern phones are quite different in physical phone design (phones that weigh less than 4*AA batteries aren’t uncommon), functionality (fast CPUs and big screens suck power), and use (games really drain your phone battery). This requires much more effective chargers, when some phones are intensively used (EG playing an action game with Wifi enabled) they can’t be charged as they use more power than the plug-pack supplies. I’ve previously blogged some calculations about resistance and thickness of wires for phone chargers [1], it’s obvious that there are some technical limitations to phone charging based on the decision to use a long cable at ~5V.

My calculations about phone charge rate were based on the theoretical resistance of wires based on their estimated cross-sectional area. One problem with such analysis is that it’s difficult to determine how thick the insulation is without destroying the wire. Another problem is that after repeated use of a charging cable some conductors break due to excessive bending. This can significantly increase the resistance and therefore increase the charging time. Recently a charging cable that used to be really good suddenly became almost useless. My Galaxy Note 2 would claim that it was being charged even though the reported level of charge in the battery was not increasing, it seems that the cable only supplied enough power to keep the phone running not enough to actually charge the battery.

I recently bought a USB current measurement device which is really useful. I have used it to diagnose power supplies and USB cables that didn’t work correctly. But one significant way in which it fails is in the case of problems with the USB connector. Sometimes a cable performs differently when connected via the USB current measurement device.

The CurrentWidget program [2] on my Galaxy Note 2 told me that all of the dedicated USB chargers (the 12V one in my car and all the mains powered ones) supply 1698mA (including the ones rated at 1A) while a PC USB port supplies ~400mA. I don’t think that the Note 2 measurement is particularly reliable. On my Galaxy Note 3 it always says 0mA, I guess that feature isn’t implemented. An old Galaxy S3 reports 999mA of charging even when the USB current measurement device says ~500mA. It seems to me that method the CurrentWidget uses to get the current isn’t accurate if it even works at all.

Android 5 on the Nexus 4/5 phones will tell the amount of time until the phone is charged in some situations (on the Nexus 4 and Nexus 5 that I used for testing it didn’t always display it and I don’t know why). This is an useful but it’s still not good enough.

I think that what we need is to have the phone measure the current that’s being supplied and report it to the user. Then when a phone charges slowly because apps are using some power that won’t be mistaken for a phone charging slowly due to a defective cable or connector.

One Android Phone Per Child

I was asked for advice on whether children should have access to smart phones, it’s an issue that many people are discussing and seems worthy of a blog post.

Claimed Problems with Smart Phones

The first thing that I think people should read is this XKCD post with quotes about the demise of letter writing from 99+ years ago [1]. Given the lack of evidence cited by people who oppose phone use I think we should consider to what extent the current concerns about smart phone use are just reactions to changes in society. I’ve done some web searching for reasons that people give for opposing smart phone use by kids and addressed the issues below.

Some people claim that children shouldn’t get a phone when they are so young that it will just be a toy. That’s interesting given the dramatic increase in the amount of money spent on toys for children in recent times. It’s particularly interesting when parents buy game consoles for their children but refuse mobile phone “toys” (I know someone who did this). I think this is more of a social issue regarding what is a suitable toy than any real objection to phones used as toys. Obviously the educational potential of a mobile phone is much greater than that of a game console.

It’s often claimed that kids should spend their time reading books instead of using phones. When visiting libraries I’ve observed kids using phones to store lists of books that they want to read, this seems to discredit that theory. Also some libraries have Android and iOS apps for searching their catalogs. There are a variety of apps for reading eBooks, some of which have access to many free books but I don’t expect many people to read novels on a phone.

Cyber-bullying is the subject of a lot of anxiety in the media. At least with cyber-bullying there’s an electronic trail, anyone who suspects that their child is being cyber-bullied can check that while old-fashioned bullying is more difficult to track down. Also while cyber-bullying can happen faster on smart phones the victim can also be harassed on a PC. I don’t think that waiting to use a PC and learn what nasty thing people are saying about you is going to be much better than getting an instant notification on a smart phone. It seems to me that the main disadvantage of smart phones in regard to cyber-bullying is that it’s easier for a child to participate in bullying if they have such a device. As most parents don’t seem concerned that their child might be a bully (unfortunately many parents think it’s a good thing) this doesn’t seem like a logical objection.

Fear of missing out (FOMO) is claimed to be a problem, apparently if a child has a phone then they will want to take it to bed with them and that would be a bad thing. But parents could have a policy about when phones may be used and insist that a phone not be taken into the bedroom. If it’s impossible for a child to own a phone without taking it to bed then the parents are probably dealing with other problems. I’m not convinced that a phone in bed is necessarily a bad thing anyway, a phone can be used as an alarm clock and instant-message notifications can be turned off at night. When I was young I used to wait until my parents were asleep before getting out of bed to use my PC, so if smart-phones were available when I was young it wouldn’t have changed my night-time computer use.

Some people complain that kids might use phones to play games too much or talk to their friends too much. What do people expect kids to do? In recent times the fear of abduction has led to children doing playing outside a lot less, it used to be that 6yos would play with other kids in their street and 9yos would be allowed to walk to the local park. Now people aren’t allowing 14yo kids walk to the nearest park alone. Playing games and socialising with other kids has to be done over the Internet because kids aren’t often allowed out of the house. Play and socialising are important learning experiences that have to happen online if they can’t happen offline.

Apps can be expensive. But it’s optional to sign up for a credit card with the Google Play store and the range of free apps is really good. Also the default configuration of the app store is to require a password entry before every purchase. Finally it is possible to give kids pre-paid credit cards and let them pay for their own stuff, such pre-paid cards are sold at Australian post offices and I’m sure that most first-world countries have similar facilities.

Electronic communication is claimed to be somehow different and lesser than old-fashioned communication. I presume that people made the same claims about the telephone when it first became popular. The only real difference between email and posted letters is that email tends to be shorter because the reply time is smaller, you can reply to any questions in the same day not wait a week for a response so it makes sense to expect questions rather than covering all possibilities in the first email. If it’s a good thing to have longer forms of communication then a smart phone with a big screen would be a better option than a “feature phone”, and if face to face communication is preferred then a smart phone with video-call access would be the way to go (better even than old fashioned telephony).

Real Problems with Smart Phones

The majority opinion among everyone who matters (parents, teachers, and police) seems to be that crime at school isn’t important. Many crimes that would result in jail sentences if committed by adults receive either no punishment or something trivial (such as lunchtime detention) if committed by school kids. Introducing items that are both intrinsically valuable and which have personal value due to the data storage into a typical school environment is probably going to increase the amount of crime. The best options to deal with this problem are to prevent kids from taking phones to school or to home-school kids. Fixing the crime problem at typical schools isn’t a viable option.

Bills can potentially be unexpectedly large due to kids’ inability to restrain their usage and telcos deliberately making their plans tricky to profit from excess usage fees. The solution is to only use pre-paid plans, fortunately many companies offer good deals for pre-paid use. In Australia Aldi sells pre-paid credit in $15 increments that lasts a year [2]. So it’s possible to pay $15 per year for a child’s phone use, have them use Wifi for data access and pay from their own money if they make excessive calls. For older kids who need data access when they aren’t at home or near their parents there are other pre-paid phone companies that offer good deals, I’ve previously compared prices of telcos in Australia, some of those telcos should do [3].

It’s expensive to buy phones. The solution to this is to not buy new phones for kids, give them an old phone that was used by an older relative or buy an old phone on ebay. Also let kids petition wealthy relatives for a phone as a birthday present. If grandparents want to buy the latest smart-phone for a 7yo then there’s no reason to stop them IMHO (this isn’t a hypothetical situation).

Kids can be irresponsible and lose or break their phone. But the way kids learn to act responsibly is by practice. If they break a good phone and get a lesser phone as a replacement or have to keep using a broken phone then it’s a learning experience. A friend’s son head-butted his phone and cracked the screen – he used it for 6 months after that, I think he learned from that experience. I think that kids should learn to be responsible with a phone several years before they are allowed to get a “learner’s permit” to drive a car on public roads, which means that they should have their own phone when they are 12.

I’ve seen an article about a school finding that tablets didn’t work as well as laptops which was touted as news. Laptops or desktop PCs obviously work best for typing. Tablets are for situations where a laptop isn’t convenient and when the usage involves mostly reading/watching, I’ve seen school kids using tablets on excursions which seems like a good use of them. Phones are even less suited to writing than tablets. This isn’t a problem for phone use, you just need to use the right device for each task.

Phones vs Tablets

Some people think that a tablet is somehow different from a phone. I’ve just read an article by a parent who proudly described their policy of buying “feature phones” for their children and tablets for them to do homework etc. Really a phone is just a smaller tablet, once you have decided to buy a tablet the choice to buy a smart phone is just about whether you want a smaller version of what you have already got.

The iPad doesn’t appear to be able to make phone calls (but it supports many different VOIP and video-conferencing apps) so that could technically be described as a difference. AFAIK all Android tablets that support 3G networking also support making and receiving phone calls if you have a SIM installed. It is awkward to use a tablet to make phone calls but most usage of a modern phone is as an ultra portable computer not as a telephone.

The phone vs tablet issue doesn’t seem to be about the capabilities of the device. It’s about how portable the device should be and the image of the device. I think that if a tablet is good then a more portable computing device can only be better (at least when you need greater portability).

Recently I’ve been carrying a 10″ tablet around a lot for work, sometimes a tablet will do for emergency work when a phone is too small and a laptop is too heavy. Even though tablets are thin and light it’s still inconvenient to carry, the issue of size and weight is a greater problem for kids. 7″ tablets are a lot smaller and lighter, but that’s getting close to a 5″ phone.

Benefits of Smart Phones

Using a smart phone is good for teaching children dexterity. It can also be used for teaching art in situations where more traditional art forms such as finger painting aren’t possible (I have met a professional artist who has used a Samsung Galaxy Note phone for creating art work).

There is a huge range of educational apps for smart phones.

The Wikireader (that I reviewed 4 years ago) [4] has obvious educational benefits. But a phone with Internet access (either 3G or Wifi) gives Wikipedia access including all pictures and is a better fit for most pockets.

There are lots of educational web sites and random web sites that can be used for education (Googling the answer to random questions).

When it comes to preparing kids for “the real world” or “the work environment” people often claim that kids need to use Microsoft software because most companies do (regardless of the fact that most companies will be using radically different versions of MS software by the time current school kids graduate from university). In my typical work environment I’m expected to be able to find the answer to all sorts of random work-related questions at any time and I think that many careers have similar expectations. Being able to quickly look things up on a phone is a real work skill, and a skill that’s going to last a lot longer than knowing today’s version of MS-Office.

There are a variety of apps for tracking phones. There are non-creepy ways of using such apps for monitoring kids. Also with two-way monitoring kids will know when their parents are about to collect them from an event and can stay inside until their parents are in the area. This combined with the phone/SMS functionality that is available on feature-phones provides some benefits for child safety.

iOS vs Android

Rumour has it that iOS is better than Android for kids diagnosed with Low Functioning Autism. There are apparently apps that help non-verbal kids communicate with icons and for arranging schedules for kids who have difficulty with changes to plans. I don’t know anyone who has a LFA child so I haven’t had any reason to investigate such things. Anyone can visit an Apple store and a Samsung Experience store as they have phones and tablets you can use to test out the apps (at least the ones with free versions). As an aside the money the Australian government provides to assist Autistic children can be used to purchase a phone or tablet if a registered therapist signs a document declaring that it has a therapeutic benefit.

I think that Android devices are generally better for educational purposes than iOS devices because Android is a less restrictive platform. On an Android device you can install apps downloaded from a web site or from a 3rd party app download service. Even if you stick to the Google Play store there’s a wider range of apps to choose from because Google is apparently less restrictive.

Android devices usually allow installation of a replacement OS. The Nexus devices are always unlocked and have a wide range of alternate OS images and the other commonly used devices can usually have an alternate OS installed. This allows kids who have the interest and technical skill to extensively customise their device and learn all about it’s operation. iOS devices are designed to be sealed against the user. Admittedly there probably aren’t many kids with the skill and desire to replace the OS on their phone, but I think it’s good to have option.

Android phones have a range of sizes and features while Apple only makes a few devices at any time and there’s usually only a couple of different phones on sale. iPhones are also a lot smaller than most Android phones, according to my previous estimates of hand size the iPhone 5 would be a good tablet for a 3yo or good for side-grasp phone use for a 10yo [5]. The main benefits of a phone are for things other than making phone calls so generally the biggest phone that will fit in a pocket is the best choice. The tiny iPhones don’t seem very suitable.

Also buying one of each is a viable option.

Conclusion

I think that mobile phone ownership is good for almost all kids even from a very young age (there are many reports of kids learning to use phones and tablets before they learn to read). There are no real down-sides that I can find.

I think that Android devices are generally a better option than iOS devices. But in the case of special needs kids there may be advantages to iOS.

BTRFS Status June 2015

The version of btrfs-tools in Debian/Jessie is incapable of creating a filesystem that can be mounted by the kernel in Debian/Wheezy. If you want to use a BTRFS filesystem on Jessie and Wheezy (which isn’t uncommon with removable devices) the only options are to use the Wheezy version of mkfs.btrfs or to use a Jessie kernel on Wheezy. I recently got bitten by this issue when I created a BTRFS filesystem on a removable device with a lot of important data (which is why I wanted metadata duplication and checksums) and had to read it on a server running Wheezy. Fortunately KVM in Wheezy works really well so I created a virtual machine to read the disk. Setting up a new KVM isn’t that difficult, but it’s not something I want to do while a client is anxiously waiting for their data.

BTRFS has been working well for me apart from the Jessie/Wheezy compatability issue (which was an annoyance but didn’t stop me doing what I wanted). I haven’t written a BTRFS status report for a while because everything has been OK and there has been nothing exciting to report.

I regularly get errors from the cron jobs that run a balance supposedly running out of free space. I have the cron jobs due to past problems with BTRFS running out of metadata space. In spite of the jobs often failing the systems keep working so I’m not too worried at the moment. I think this is a bug, but there are many more important bugs.

Linux kernel version 3.19 was the first version to have working support for RAID-5 recovery. This means version 3.19 was the first version to have usable RAID-5 (I think there is no point even having RAID-5 without recovery). It wouldn’t be prudent to trust your important data to a new feature in a filesystem. So at this stage if I needed a very large scratch space then BTRFS RAID-5 might be a viable option but for anything else I wouldn’t use it. BTRFS still has had little performance optimisation, while this doesn’t matter much for SSD and for single-disk filesystems for a RAID-5 of hard drives that would probably hurt a lot. Maybe BTRFS RAID-5 would be good for a scratch array of SSDs. The reports of problems with RAID-5 don’t surprise me at all.

I have a BTRFS RAID-1 filesystem on 2*4TB disks which is giving poor performance on metadata, simple operations like “ls -l” on a directory with ~200 subdirectories takes many seconds to run. I suspect that part of the problem is due to the filesystem being written by cron jobs with files accumulating over more than a year. The “btrfs filesystem” command (see btrfs-filesystem(8)) allows defragmenting files and directory trees, but unfortunately it doesn’t support recursively defragmenting directories but not files. I really wish there was a way to get BTRFS to put all metadata on SSD and all data on hard drives. Sander suggested the following command to defragment directories on the BTRFS mailing list:

find / -xdev -type d -execdir btrfs filesystem defrag -c {} +

Below is the output of “zfs list -t snapshot” on a server I run, it’s often handy to know how much space is used by snapshots, but unfortunately BTRFS has no support for this.

NAME	USED	AVAIL	REFER	MOUNTPOINT
hetz0/be0-mail@2015-03-10	2.88G	–	387G	–
hetz0/be0-mail@2015-03-11	1.12G	–	388G	–
hetz0/be0-mail@2015-03-12	1.11G	–	388G	–
hetz0/be0-mail@2015-03-13	1.19G	–	388G	–

Hugo pointed out on the BTRFS mailing list that the following command will give the amount of space used for snapshots. $SNAPSHOT is the name of a snapshot and $LASTGEN is the generation number of the previous snapshot you want to compare with.

btrfs subvolume find-new $SNAPSHOT $LASTGEN | awk '{total = total + $7}END{print total}'

One upside of the BTRFS implementation in this regard is that the above btrfs command without being piped through awk shows you the names of files that are being written and the amounts of data written to them. Through casually examining this output I discovered that the most written files in my home directory were under the “.cache” directory (which wasn’t exactly a surprise).

Now I am configuring workstations with a separate subvolume for ~/.cache for the main user. This means that ~/.cache changes don’t get stored in the hourly snapshots and less disk space is used for snapshots.

Conclusion

My observation is that things are going quite well with BTRFS. It’s more than 6 months since I had a noteworthy problem which is pretty good for a filesystem that’s still under active development. But there are still many systems I run which could benefit from the data integrity features of ZFS and BTRFS that don’t have the resources to run ZFS and need more reliability than I can expect from an unattended BTRFS system.

At this time the only servers I run with BTRFS are located within a reasonable drive from my home (not the servers in Germany and the US) and are easily accessible (not the embedded systems). ZFS is working well for some of the servers in Germany. Eventually I’ll probably run ZFS on all the hosted servers in Germany and the US, I expect that will happen before I’m comfortable running BTRFS on such systems. For the embedded systems I will just take the risk of data loss/corruption for the next few years.

Anti-Systemd People

For the Technical People

This post isn’t really about technology, I’ll cover the technology briefly skip to the next section if you aren’t interested in Linux programming or system administration.

I’ve been using the Systemd init system for a long time, I first tested it in 2010 [1]. I use Systemd on most of my systems that run Debian/Wheezy (which means most of the Linux systems I run which aren’t embedded systems). Currently the only systems where I’m not running Systemd are some systems on which I don’t have console access, while Systemd works reasonably well it wasn’t a standard init system for Debian/Wheezy so I don’t run it everywhere. That said I haven’t had any problems with Systemd in Wheezy, so I might have been too paranoid.

I recently wrote a blog post about systemd, just some basic information on how to use it and why it’s not a big deal [2]. I’ve been playing with Systemd for almost 5 years and using it in production for almost 2 years and it’s performed well. The most serious bug I’ve found in systemd is Bug #774153 which causes a Wheezy->Jessie upgrade to hang until you run “systemctl daemon-reexec” [3].

I know that some people have had problems with systemd, but any piece of significant software will cause problems for some people, there are bugs in all software that is complex enough to be useful. However the fact that it has worked so well for me on so many systems suggests that it’s not going to cause huge problems, it should be covered in the routine testing that is needed for a significant deployment of any new version of a distribution.

I’ve been using Debian for a long time. The transitions from libc4 to libc5 and then libc6 were complex but didn’t break much. The use of devfs in Debian caused some issues and then the removal of devfs caused other issues. The introduction of udev probably caused problems for some people too. Doing major updates to Debian systems isn’t something that is new or which will necessarily cause significant problems, I don’t think that the change to systemd by default compares to changing from a.out binaries to ELF binaries (which required replacing all shared objects and executables).

The Social Issue of the Default Init

Recently the Debian technical committee determined that Systemd was the best choice for the default init system in Debian/Jessie (the next release of Debian which will come out soon). Decisions about which programs should be in the default install are made periodically and it’s usually not a big deal. Even when the choice is between options that directly involve the user (such as the KDE and GNOME desktop environments) it’s not really a big deal because you can just install a non-default option.

One of the strengths of Debian has always been the fact that any Debian Developer (DD) can just add any new package to the archive if they maintain it to a suitable technical standard and if copyright and all other relevant laws are respected. Any DD who doesn’t like any of the current init systems can just package a new one and upload it. Obviously the default option will get more testing, so the non-default options will need more testing by the maintainer. This is particularly difficult for programs that have significant interaction with other parts of the system, I’ve had difficulties with this over the course of 14 years of SE Linux development but I’ve also found that it’s not an impossible problem to solve.

It’s generally accepted that making demands of other people’s volunteer work is a bad thing, which to some extent is a reasonable position. There is a problem when this is taken to extremes, Debian has over 1000 developers who have to work together so sometimes it’s a question of who gets to do the extra work to make the parts of the distribution fit together. The issue of who gets to do the work is often based on what parts are the defaults or most commonly used options. For my work on SE Linux I often have to do a lot of extra work because it’s not part of the default install and I have to make my requests for changes to other packages be as small and simple as possible.

So part of the decision to make Systemd be the default init is essentially a decision to impose slightly more development effort on the people who maintain SysVInit if they are to provide the same level of support – of course given the lack of overall development on SysVInit the level of support provided may decrease. It also means slightly less development effort for the people who maintain Systemd as developers of daemon packages MUST make them work with it. Another part of this issue is the fact that DDs who maintain daemon packages need to maintain init.d scripts (for SysVInit) and systemd scripts, presumably most DDs will have a preference for one init system and do less testing for the other one. Therefore the choice of systemd as the default means that slightly less developer effort will go into init.d scripts. On average this will slightly increase the amount of sysadmin effort that will be required to run systems with SysVInit as the scripts will on average be less well tested. This isn’t going to be a problem in the short term as the current scripts are working reasonably well, but over the course of years bugs may creep in and a proposed solution to this is to have SysVInit scripts generated from systemd config files.

We did have a long debate within Debian about the issue of default init systems and many Debian Developers disagree about this. But there is a big difference between volunteers debating about their work and external people who don’t contribute but believe that they are entitled to tell us what to do. Especially when the non-contributors abuse the people who do the work.

The Crowd Reaction

In a world filled with reasonable people who aren’t assholes there wouldn’t be any more reaction to this than there has been to decisions such as which desktop environment should be the default (which has caused some debate but nothing serious). The issue of which desktop environment (or which version of a desktop environment) to support has a significant affect on users that can’t be avoided, I could understand people being a little upset about that. But the init system isn’t something that most users will notice – apart from the boot time.

For some reason the men in the Linux community who hate women the most seem to have taken a dislike to systemd. I understand that being “conservative” might mean not wanting changes to software as well as not wanting changes to inequality in society but even so this surprised me. My last blog post about systemd has probably set a personal record for the amount of misogynistic and homophobic abuse I received in the comments. More gender and sexuality related abuse than I usually receive when posting about the issues of gender and sexuality in the context of the FOSS community! For the record this doesn’t bother me, when I get such abuse I’m just going to write more about the topic in question.

While the issue of which init system to use by default in Debian was being discussed we had a lot of hostility from unimportant people who for some reason thought that they might get their way by being abusive and threatening people. As expected that didn’t give the result they desired, but it did result in a small trend towards people who are less concerned about the reactions of users taking on development work related to init systems.

The next thing that they did was to announce a “fork” of Debian. Forking software means maintaining a separate version due to a serious disagreement about how it should be maintained. Doing that requires a significant amount of work in compiling all the source code and testing the results. The sensible option would be to just maintain a separate repository of modified packages as has been done many times before. One of the most well known repositories was the Debian Multimedia repository, it was controversial due to flouting legal issues (the developer produced code that was legal where they lived) and due to confusion among users. But it demonstrated that you can make a repository containing many modified packages. In my work on SE Linux I’ve always had a repository of packages containing changes that haven’t been accepted into Debian, which included changes to SysVInit in about 2001.

The latest news on the fork-Debian front seems to be the call for donations [4]. Apparently most of the money that was spent went to accounting fees and buying a laptop for a developer. The amount of money involved is fairly small, Forbes has an article about how awful people can use “controversy” to get crowd-funding windfalls [5].

MikeeUSA is an evil person who hates systemd [6]. This isn’t any sort of evidence that systemd is great (I’m sure that evil people make reasonable choices about software on occasion). But it is a significant factor in support for non-systemd variants of Debian (and other Linux distributions). Decent people don’t want to be associated with people like MikeeUSA, the fact that the anti-systemd people seem happy to associate with him isn’t going to help their cause.

Conclusion

Forking Debian is not the correct technical solution to any problem you might have with a few packages. Filing bug reports and possibly forking those packages in an external repository is the right thing to do.

Sending homophobic and sexist abuse is going to make you as popular as the GamerGate and GodHatesAmerica.com people. It’s not going to convince anyone to change their mind about technical decisions.

Abusing volunteers who might consider donating some of their time to projects that you like is generally a bad idea. If you abuse them enough you might get them to volunteer less of their time, but the most likely result is that they just don’t volunteer on anything associated with you.

Abusing people who write technical blog posts isn’t going to convince them that they made an error. Abuse is evidence of the absence of technical errors.

SE Linux Play Machine Over Tor

I work on SE Linux to improve security for all computer users. I think that my work has gone reasonably well in that regard in terms of directly improving security of computers and helping developers find and fix certain types of security flaws in apps. But a large part of the security problems we have at the moment are related to subversion of Internet infrastructure. The Tor project is a significant step towards addressing such problems. So to achieve my goals in improving computer security I have to support the Tor project. So I decided to put my latest SE Linux Play Machine online as a Tor hidden service. There is no real need for it to be hidden (for the record it’s in my bedroom), but it’s a learning experience for me and for everyone who logs in.

A Play Machine is what I call a system with root as the guest account with only SE Linux to restrict access.

Running a Hidden Service

A Hidden Service in TOR is just a cryptographically protected address that forwards to a regular TCP port. It’s not difficult to setup and the Tor project has good documentation [1]. For Debian the file to edit is /etc/tor/torrc.

I added the following 3 lines to my torrc to create a hidden service for SSH. I forwarded port 80 for test purposes because web browsers are easier to configure for SOCKS proxying than ssh.

HiddenServiceDir /var/lib/tor/hidden_service/
HiddenServicePort 22 192.168.0.2:22
HiddenServicePort 80 192.168.0.2:22

Generally when setting up a hidden service you want to avoid using an IP address that gives anything away. So it’s a good idea to run a hidden service on a virtual machine that is well isolated from any public network. My Play machine is hidden in that manner not for secrecy but to prevent it being used for attacking other systems.

SSH over Tor

Howtoforge has a good article on setting up SSH with Tor [2]. That has everything you need for setting up Tor for a regular ssh connection, but the tor-resolve program only works for connecting to services on the public Internet. By design the .onion addresses used by Hidden Services have no mapping to anything that reswemble IP addresses and tor-resolve breaks it. I believe that the fact that tor-resolve breaks thins in this situation is a bug, I have filed Debian bug report #776454 requesting that tor-resolve allow such things to just work [3].

Host *.onion
ProxyCommand connect -5 -S localhost:9050 %h %p

I use the above ssh configuration (which can go in ~/.ssh/config or /etc/ssh/ssh_config) to tell the ssh client how to deal with .onion addresses. I also had to install the connect-proxy package which provides the connect program.

ssh root@zp7zwyd5t3aju57m.onion
The authenticity of host ‘zp7zwyd5t3aju57m.onion ()
ECDSA key fingerprint is 3c:17:2f:7b:e2:f6:c0:c2:66:f5:c9:ab:4e:02:45:74.
Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)?

I now get the above message when I connect, the ssh developers have dealt with connecting via a proxy that doesn’t have an IP address.

Also see the general information page about my Play Machine, that information page has the root password [4].

Systemd Notes

A few months ago I gave a lecture about systemd for the Linux Users of Victoria. Here are some of my notes reformatted as a blog post:

Scripts in /etc/init.d can still be used, they work the same way as they do under sysvinit for the user. You type the same commands to start and stop daemons.

To get a result similar to changing runlevel use the “systemctl isolate” command. Runlevels were never really supported in Debian (unlike Red Hat where they were used for starting and stopping the X server) so for Debian users there’s no change here.

The command systemctl with no params shows a list of loaded services and highlights failed units.

The command “journalctl -u UNIT-PATTERN” shows journal entries for the unit(s) in question. The pattern uses wildcards not regexs.

The systemd journal includes the stdout and stderr of all daemons. This solves the problem of daemons that don’t log all errors to syslog and leave the sysadmin wondering why they don’t work.

The command “systemctl status UNIT” gives the status and last log entries for the unit in question.

A program can use ioctl(fd, TIOCSTI, …) to push characters into a tty buffer. If the sysadmin runs an untrusted program with the same controlling tty then it can cause the sysadmin shell to run hostile commands. The system call setsid() to create a new terminal session is one solution but managing which daemons can be started with it is difficult. The way that systemd manages start/stop of all daemons solves this. I am glad to be rid of the run_init program we used to use on SE Linux systems to deal with this.

Systemd has a mechanism to ask for passwords for SSL keys and encrypted filesystems etc. There have been problems with that in the past but I think they are all fixed now. While there is some difficulty during development the end result of having one consistent way of managing this will be better than having multiple daemons doing it in different ways.

The commands “systemctl enable” and “systemctl disable” enable/disable daemon start at boot which is easier than the SysVinit alternative of update-rc.d in Debian.

Systemd has built in seat management, which is not more complex than consolekit which it replaces. Consolekit was installed automatically without controversy so I don’t think there should be controversy about systemd replacing consolekit.

Systemd improves performance by parallel start and autofs style fsck.

The command systemd-cgtop shows resource use for cgroups it creates.

The command “systemd-analyze blame” shows what delayed the boot process and
“systemd-analyze critical-chain” shows the critical path in boot delays.

Sysremd also has security features such as service private /tmp and restricting service access to directory trees.

Conclusion

For basic use things just work, you don’t need to learn anything new to use systemd.

It provides significant benefits for boot speed and potentially security.

It doesn’t seem more complex than other alternative solutions to the same problems.

https://wiki.debian.org/systemd

http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Optimizations/

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/security.html

Archives

Categories

Tags

Xperia X10

Samsung Galaxy S

CyanogenMod

Samsung Galaxy S3 and Wireless Charging

Nexus 4

Galaxy Note 2

Bluetooth Speakers

Nexus 5

Galaxy Note 3

Tablets

Phone Longevity

Conclusion

Jokes

Who does a Code of Conduct Protect

The Public Interest

Claimed Problems with Smart Phones

Real Problems with Smart Phones

Phones vs Tablets

Benefits of Smart Phones

iOS vs Android

Conclusion

Conclusion

For the Technical People

The Social Issue of the Default Init

The Crowd Reaction

Conclusion

Running a Hidden Service

SSH over Tor

Conclusion

Archives

Email and RSS