As an update to my note about advogato.org’s mooted closure, the new maintainer Steven Rainwater emailed me to let me know about the all new, inclusive Advogato: they’ve added an aggregator. If you have an Advogato account, you can now return to the recentlog by going to your account settings, ticking the Syndicate your blog from another site?
box and then putting an RSS or Atom feed in.
linux.conf.au payments (attention earlybirds)
Just spreading the word, since neither Andrew nor I received an email invoice for our registration: credit card payments for linux.conf.au are now being accepted. (We did get the announcement, but previous conference experience—ACL, HCSNet—this year has unfortunately taught me that registration information is not sent out using titles like Countdown to linux.conf.au 2007: 48 DAYS TO GO
, those kind of titles now indicate to me we’ve updated the website!
and now we have a directory of attendees!
, ie, not action items. So, I didn’t actually read it. Oops.)
People who got the earlybird price (which closed Nov 15) must pay by December 8. You can also still register now and get the regular price, although as the announcement (also) pointed out, if you want to stay on campus in the pre-arranged accommodation, or you want to go to the dinner, register soon. (It’s unpredictable how full they really are, until they start re-opening spots that people haven’t paid for. But 450 attendees who haven’t put down money yet is still a goodly number when I believe the aim is 800.)
In Melbourne Dec 5–10
Dear universe, Andrew and I are in Melbourne for OSDC from Tuesday December 5 to Sunday December 10 (in the morning, anyway). If any of you are in Melbourne that week and would like to meet us for breakfast/lunch/dinner/drinkies, get in touch.
linux.conf.au stuff
- Registration is open, starting from the low low price of $99 for students and proceeding to $300 for self-funded attendees and $690 for professional attendees
- the LinuxChix miniconference programme is available in draft form (waiting for some speakers to confirm that they can make it); and
- if you’d like partial reimbursement of registration costs, you can volunteer to help out.
Ubuntu code names
A relatively idle thought after doing Ubuntu support on LinuxChix lists for a while: are the code names really such a good idea? People have an enormous amount of trouble correctly identifying their Ubuntu version. I’ve seen the following problems:
- people not realising that the zeros are significant in the version number and asking for support with Ubuntu 6.1 (they probably mean 6.10/Edgy Eft) or 6.6 (they probably mean 6.06 LTS/Dapper Drake);
- at least half the time people quoting the Ubuntu version number and codename together quote a mismatched name and number (
Ubuntu Breezy 6.06
,Ubuntu Dapper 6.10
and that’s not even getting intoUbuntu Breezy 6.1
orUbontoo/Urbanto/Obonto Dragon
and so on), which means that you have no idea which version they actually mean; and - the code names are memorable, but seemingly not memorable enough, there’s a lot of people out there talking about the Edgy Elf, which sounds like a bad drug pusher.
Ubuntu is far from the only software using well publicised release code names. I remember the good old days pre-Windows 95 (the good old days are always more than a decade ago), when you couldn’t talk computers without talking about ‘Chicago’. Debian’s release code names are also very commonly used; potato, woody, sarge, how well I remember thee, and I have no idea what thy version numbers were. In fact, the problem might perhaps be that the release code names and the version numbers are essentially equally well known when it comes to Ubuntu, so people feel the need to state both and aren’t clear on the mapping between them.
I suspect also the regular releases are hard on people: people know that there’s lots of Ubuntus and they have to identify their one, but there’s changes often enough that casual onlookers and users are more confused by the release names than they are aided by them. The release numbers map to the release date (4.10 was released in October—month 10—of 2004, 5.04 in April 2005 and so on) but most people, I believe, treat version numbers as Marketing Magic the like of which mortals do not ken and question no further. The six month release cycle means that the current system always has several easily confused releases too (you can confuse either the first number, mixing up 5.04 with 5.10, say, or the second one, mixing up 5.10 with 6.10).
I don’t have any particular suggestion about an alternative, and suspect that the developer community is wedded to their names even if the users are a bit puzzled. I suppose simpler would be better: Ubuntu 1, Ubuntu 2… but then the numbers get high quickly.
Really final evaluation of edgy
Really final, because last time I hadn’t upgraded a server, and yesterday I did. It made me very sad indeed.
Original complaint | Bug number | Fixed? | Remaining sadness level |
apt crashes when upgrading courier-authlib | 64615 | No (there are a couple of potluck workarounds in the report) | High, because it took me about an hour and a half to hunt down the bug report and get apt and dpkg to dig themselves out of the mess they were in. |
Transparent proxying in Squid is broken | 68818 | No (there’s a fix and workaround in the upstream report) | High, because it took Andrew about an hour to hunt down the bug report and jigger with the upstream workaround. Yes I know transparent proxying is evil, and someday someone will figure out a clean way to autodistribute proxy settings whenever I connect my laptop to a new network, but until then I use it. |
Network Manager can’t always tell the difference between wired and wireless cards |
59981 | Yes | Moderate, fixing this one has just made the intermittant appearances of 40125 more obvious, but somehow I find 40125 less irritiating. |
Nevow is completely useless, won’t even import properly in Python | 61423 | No | Moderate. It turns out (and by it turns outI mean I figured out) you can install the Nevow 0.9 package from Debian unstable and it will work just great. But if Nevow isn’t supported even to the point of shipping an importable Python package, why is it still in Ubuntu’s main? This enhances my sadness level. |
If you type words into the address bar, the epiphany browser no longer treats them as search terms for Google, it instead treats them as a bad URL. |
56610 | No (patch is available) | Low, since I was able to build the fixed package as suggested in the report. |
When I attach my Canon IXUS 65 to my computer via USB, Import Photos reportsCould not claim the IO device. |
64146 | Yes, or at least they say so and it works for me, but people are still adding to the bug. | Low, and only because I keep getting the bug mail about it. |
X can’t always… work [actually, probably a bug in vbetool, causing rendering glitches on resume from suspend] |
60882 | Officially no, but I see it occur way less often now, maybe not at all since Edgy released. | Low, since I see it so seldom. It’s really annoying when it does pop up though. |
Aptitude… is now incredibly slow to resolve dependencies |
51893 | Yes | None |
GNOME reports that CPU scaling is not available on my machine |
Wasn’t one, I didn’t have powernowd installed | N/A | None |
The linux.conf.au review process
I’ve written already about the type of proposal that is likely to be accepted to linux.conf.au, this is a discussion of how the process worked.
Our process aims to find a good set of talks. Past conferences have asked for written papers too, but we do not believe they are widely read and some authors have simply not sent them in, which is possibly unfair to people who believed the given requirements and wrote their paper. This year we didn’t ask. By not asking for papers, conferences like linux.conf.au are missing one opportunity to actually check that our speakers have had more than a paragraph worth of thoughts concerning their talk. Hence the emphasis on known good technical quality and known speaking ability in the criteria.
I’d like to make a quick comparison here with academic computing conferences. Firstly to clear up a common misconception about academic conferences: people don’t just read their papers out loud; or at least not in computing. I’m told they do in philosophy. It’s meant to be an engaging narrative about a problem and its solution, much like a technical conference talk. (Both types of conferences have speakers that fail at this.) The selection is very different though: for an academic conference you submit an abstract or a full academic paper, usually in the 8–15 pages range, and selection is usually based entirely on the quality of the research as demonstrated in the paper, rather than on your history as an engaging or hugely popular public speaker. And the papers are actually important, in computing they will contain (or ideally contain) enough details to allow people to replicate the research (in traditional experimental science, that stuff goes in journals, in computing journals tend to contain only very serious and really stellar work). People wanting to do serious critiques of the work or to extend it will refer extensively to the paper; the paper matters in the way that code does in Free Software. Reviewers will study the paper in detail: ten conference papers would be a very very high reviewing load for a single conference.
This year all program committee members were asked to review all proposals. We voted on them, literally, on a scale of 1–5, which I personally interpreted as please no
through to I will die if we reject this
, although other reviewers may have calibrated differently. We did not provide feedback that was intended for the authors. We did not, therefore, do what would be called peer review
, which is about extensive constructive criticism of the work suggesting ways to improve it, even if it is being rejected. That’s expensive for reviewers and would require drawing reviewers from a broader range of backgrounds: the kind of expertise required to say this talk is not terribly exciting
is not the same as the expertise required to write a letter to the author suggesting technical improvements to their work. I called the linux.conf.au process Am I hack or not?
initially, although since our acceptance rate is about 25% this turned out to be unfair to people who were rejected. Many were actually hack.
That acceptance rate does have certain effects when it comes to our criteria. We are not able to take many chances on people without a track record. We do not have the reviewing manpower to make any useful suggestions to people about their work or their talk proposal, although this would be possible with some other processes we could have used. The abstracts length for this conference makes proper peer review impossible (we could offer suggestions about making a better abstract, but not about doing better work as such even if we had the manpower). We can aim to possibly only select good or excellent talks.
I’ll be interested to compare the PyCon process, particularly since they’re pattern nuts and have found a series of patterns around which you can organise your committee meetings. I have to say an occupation hazard of doing these things is that you really want to go to the conference afterwards. I’d kill to go to PyCon now, if it wasn’t that that wouldn’t help me get a ticket to Texas one bit.
In other news, the linux.conf.au programme is available. Here’s talks I’m particularly looking forward to:
- The Kernel Report (Jonathan Corbet)
- Fixing suspend for fun and profit (Matthew Garrett)
- Digital Preservation – The National Archives of Australia, Open Standards and Open Source (Michael Carden) [although unfortunately this is up against Val Henson, who I’d also like to see]
- The OzDMCA: what it means for FOSS (Kimberlee Weatherall)
- Tutorial:GIMP Uncovered: Understanding Images and Image Editing (Akkana Peck) [I’ll have to catch either Kimberlee Weatherall or Akkana Peck on video though, another clash]
- Starting an Open Source business (Paul Fenwick)
- How to Herd Cats and Influence People (Jono Bacon)
- Concurrency and Erlang (André Pang)
- Making Sausage: How the OLPC Machine Was Designed (Jim Gettys)
Andrew has already put his hand up for the cricket match and he doesn’t even have permission to take the leave yet.
The linux.conf.au review process by Mary Gardiner is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Laptop presentation account
There are various ways speakers can embarrass themselves at conferences by projecting personal information or embarrassing stuff onto a screen in front of many people. Background images featuring non-professional levels of nudity are the most well-known problem, but others include accidentally popping up a personal chat session, interesting titles being shown in your browser history, the contents of your clipboard being more informative than you’d like, that kind of thing. You don’t only need to protect yourself against overly sexual material (well, unless you’re presenting to the BDSM community or something), there’s also password leakage, and just the vague embarrassment of showing professional peers a log of you and your husband discussing whether or not to have pork for dinner.
It occurs to me that with a bit of discipline about files, the easiest way to avoid this on laptops where you can set up a second login is to do just that: have a second account which has suitably bland background, in which you only access presentation related websites, in which you don’t IM and so on. Set the password to something totally unrelated to your usual passwords, and change it immediately after each presentation, just in case the worst happens and you type it in such a way that it appears on the screen.
And then do all presentations logged in as your special cleaned up for the general public laptop user. If you don’t even want cross-presentation pollination you could re-create the account for each presentation or have a script that does so for you, just to be sure that there’s no browser history and such.
Final evaluation of edgy
Original complaint | Bug number | Fixed? | Remaining sadness level |
If you type words into the address bar, the epiphany browser no longer treats them as search terms for Google, it instead treats them as a bad URL. |
56610 | No | Moderate, although I only realised that this was a bug, rather than the spinning wheel of dubiously user friendly UI changes, yesterday. |
Aptitude… is now incredibly slow to resolve dependencies |
51893 | Yes | None |
GNOME reports that CPU scaling is not available on my machine |
Wasn’t one, I didn’t have powernowd installed | N/A | None |
Network Manager can’t always tell the difference between wired and wireless cards |
59981 | Yes | Moderate, fixing this one has just made the intermittant appearances of 40125 more obvious, but somehow I find 40125 less irritiating. |
X can’t always… work [actually, probably a bug in vbetool, causing rendering glitches on resume from suspend] |
60882 | Officially no, but I see it occur way less often now, maybe not at all since Edgy released. | Low, since I see it so seldom. It’s really annoying when it does pop up though. |
Nevow is completely useless, won’t even import properly in Python | 61423 | No | Moderate. It turns out (and by it turns outI mean I figured out) you can install the Nevow 0.9 package from Debian unstable and it will work just great. But if Nevow isn’t supported even to the point of shipping an importable Python package, why is it still in Ubuntu’s main? This enhances my sadness level. |
When I attach my Canon IXUS 65 to my computer via USB, Import Photos reportsCould not claim the IO device. |
64146 | Yes, or at least they say so and it works for me, but people are still adding to the bug. | Low, and only because I keep getting the bug mail about it. |
Anyway, on the balance it worked out that Edgy is reasonably stable. Still no Breezy, but as stable as Dapper on my desktop. And I am asking for trouble playing with Network Manager. How I wish to smite things when stuff that used to work just fine stops for a while though. And I’m not using it on my servers: one of them is currently running a four month experiment and I don’t want to reboot it (the experiment is interruptable, but it takes about a day to recover from interruptions); and the other one runs a couple of Nevow sites and I’d prefer to use a supported package. Or at least supported.
Huh (a big deal)
Back in 2004 I finally noticed a really common construction that so far seems confined to American English: it’s not that big of a deal
and similar (How big of a perv is Foley?, How big of a problem with security?, How large of a volcanic eruption would it take to cover the entire world with volcanic material?) In Commonwealth, or at least Australian, English this would be it’s not that big a deal
(likewise how big a perv is Foley?
, How big a problem with security?
, How large a volcanic eruption would it take to cover the entire world with volcanic material?
, although I suspect the last one would often be rephrased).
I asked about it at the time (and of course one never blogs alone) and completely failed to notice that the answer came from on high, that is, that Mark Liberman from the Language Log bothered to answer. Wow.