‘Til All Are One

I live in a country where even buildings less than 100 years old can be protected as ‘heritage’. Yet in India they can demolish a 700-year-old mosque without even batting an eyelid!

The ABC have a piece from National Library of Australia web archiving manager Paul Koerbin, about the importance of digital records preservation.

Of equal importance, how can we be sure that we can actually read those archives in the future? Literacy of Egyptian Hieroglyphs was long-gone by the 18th century, and it took the discovery of the Rosetta Stone for them to start making sense again.

It’s difficult enough deciphering human language. Understanding machine language is another thing entirely.

I’ve written about this in the past, contrasting the thousand-year-old Domesday Book (which is still legible) with the BBC Domesday Project (which was rendered virtually unreadable a mere sixteen years after production).

The means of preserving our culture for digital preservation is to use open standards. If the means for ‘reading’ the information is widely documented and understood, without any encumbrances, we stand a much greater chance of being able to interpret it in a couple of hundred years.

I’ve got essays from school written only ten years ago, and I can’t read them any more as they’re stored in a proprietary file format that is no longer supported.

Imagine you ran a company that had important and valuable written records stretching back for decades. Storing vast libraries of paper is expensive and inefficient, so you decide to digitise them all. That’s great — you now have a system that is easy to manage and search. Ten years later, you want to migrate your now-ageing data management system to something more modern. Only, you can’t — it’s all stored in a proprietary format that cannot be accessed by anything else.

If you had kept those paper records, you would have still had access to that information. Your choices now are to continue with your old, obsolete system for all eternity, or hire some clever hacker to decipher the file format. With no equivalent of a Rosetta Stone, that’s no mean task. After spending buckets of money on this avoidable problem, and losing even more due to inefficiencies and competitive disadvantage from the old system, you’d be wise to make sure it cannot happen again.

This is a very common kind of scenario. If our information can’t even last ten years, how can it last a thousand?

From a business perspective, open standards protect the independence of a company. It means no vendor lock-in, so you are not stuck paying monopoly prices. Through the creation of a free market surrounding a method/technology, open standards give you the freedom to select the vendors, products, methods and technologies that suit your requirements best, or you can even create your own. They are the ultimate in risk mitigation, and through their flexibility can also open avenues for competitive advantage. They just make good business sense.

LotD: Vioxx maker Merck and Co drew up doctor hit list and Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal

The ability to run in a completely 64-bit environment is a major benefit of Linux over the competition. With everything open source, the community can port and compile applications to new architectures with ease.

On Windows, you have to suffer from the fact that just about everything is proprietary. If there’s no 64-bit version of your application, you’re forced to run it in a degraded (compared to the rest of the OS) 32-bit mode. Even worse, if there’s no 64-bit driver for your hardware then you can’t use it at all. You’re at the mercy of the vendor, and if the hardware is no longer being sold then there really is no economic incentive for them to write a new driver for you. Once Windows 7 comes out, you’ll probably be back to square one (since most drivers are OS version-specific).

What happens when you have a proprietary piece of software on Linux? Fortunately there are very few of these worth using. For the ones that are, the situation isn’t too different than on Windows.

Take Adobe Flash, for example. Adobe (and before them, Macromedia) have claimed that porting the code base to x86_64 is no walk in the park. On Linux, the means of dealing with this has been to use nspluginwrapper to coax the 32-bit Flash plug-in to work inside a 64-bit Web browser. Simultaneously, there’s been development on free runtimes for Flash media, like gnash and swfdec. The ‘solution’ on Windows and Mac OS X is truly suboptimal: run a 32-bit Web browser. If you’ve ever used Windows 64-bit, you’ll notice that Microsoft bundle both 32- and 64-bit versions of some of their software, with most icons pointing to the 32-bit variants. On the plus side, the user generally is none the wiser.

Adobe have made available a pre-release version of their x86_64 Flash 10 plug-in for Linux (still no luck for other operating systems, AFAIK). I haven’t had any trouble with it, and from what I’ve read it’s been well received in the community.

Here are the steps to install it for Firefox:

1. Uninstall any existing Flash packages that you may have installed. Package names include flashplugin-installer, flashplugin-nonfree, adobe-flash, mozilla-plugin-gnash and swfdec-mozilla.
2. Download the tarball (the link is at the bottom of that page).
3. There’s only one file inside, libflashplayer.so. Extract it to $HOME/.mozilla/plugins/ (create that directory if it doesn’t exist).
4. If Firefox is running, restart it.
5. In Firefox, go to the about:plugins page.
6. Look for the entry called Shockwave Flash to confirm it has been installed.

Warning: You are manually installing a pre-release version of a proprietary Web browser plug-in. This can have security implications. Because it is not managed by the operating system’s package manager, you need to manually make sure that you stay up-to-date to avoid security vulnerabilities.

Adobe Reader does not have an x86_64 variant for Linux, so you’ll have to install the 32-bit version.

1. Download the latest DEB packaged from the Adobe FTP server.
2. To install from the command-line, you’ll need to tell dpkg to ignore the architecture of the package:
   

   $ sudo dpkg -i --force-architecture AdbeRdr9.1.0-1_i386linux_enu.deb

3. Launch it from the Applications > Office desktop menu.

Warning: Just as with the Flash-plug-in, be aware that you are installing software from outside of the operating system’s repositories, and that you are responsible to keep this package up-to-date.

You’re probably wondering why you would need to do this when there are several great, free PDF readers out there. I almost always use Evince, but there are a couple of reasons why I like to keep Adobe Reader around:

• some PDF files don’t work properly in the free readers
• most Windows users use Adobe Reader, so it’s good for testing (just as it’s useful to keep a Windows VM around to test Web sites against Internet Explorer)

LotD: autonomo.us - Towards Free Network Services

This is the most clever thing I have seen in a long time. The equation is simple:

There’s an image of the final result over here.

Attributes include:

• costs just $US 5 to produce
• amazingly simple to create
• completely solar powered: no need for fuel
• no greenhouse gas emissions in usage (can prevent two tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per family per year)

As an advocate of appropriate technology, I find this invention to be very exciting. The ability to easily create clean drinking water and cook food can in one fell swoop eliminate many of the problems and points of conflict in the developing world.

Of course, reality is much more complex than that, but I am hopeful. One thing that remains to be seen is whether this idea actually takes off. I’ve seen a number of good ideas fail to take hold, often due to interference or lack of interest from political or corporate entities. The bane of these low-tech solutions is the perceived lack of any profit motive. Companies find it difficult to make any money off it, but they can make a killing from selling their Machine That Goes Ping at $999.99 a pop (of which, only $5 will go towards producing and improving the product, and the rest goes to marketing and legal).

I don’t get it. In a community where openness is prized, some have seen it fit to criticise that very tenet. In the world of FOSS, bug trackers are laid open for all to see (and contribute to), and mailing lists are a hive of discussion and innovation.

So why is it such a bad thing when we openly discuss the nature of our community, and the governance thereof? Kevin Rudd was widely praised for his promises to promote open government (we’re still waiting, Kevin).

To put any uncertainty to rest: Linux Australia is in great shape. We just had yet another successful linux.conf.au and have built up a substantial pot of savings, all in the face of a global financial meltdown. We are indeed in an enviable position, and we could not have done it had we not stayed true to our beliefs. Linux Australia is defined by its community support and participation.

Can we do better? Of course we can. What I’ve tried to articulate is that the best means of doing that is by scaling our community. To use a code analogy, I effectively posted a public bug report and invited the community to help find solutions. You don’t see that level of transparency from many other organisations, and I for one am very proud of that.

The FOSS community in Australia will continue to grow and thrive — anybody who went to linux.conf.au should be convinced of that. The bazaar feel is stronger than ever, and Linux Australia will continue to hold a vital role in stimulating and facilitating that development. But to do so in a manner that best suits the community’s interests requires some deliberation, planning and communication with the very community that it seeks to assist. What’s wrong with that?

If only my local MP was as in touch with his constituents…

LotD: OpenAustralia, open source goodness applied to government

It looks like I’ve opened up a can of worms. Last week I bemoaned about the low voter participation in Linux Australia (LA) elections. I spent considerable energy at linux.conf.au (LCA) in Hobart publicising the issue and canvassing opinion from community members. This culminated in a lightning talk titled ‘YOU PEOPLE SUCK’*, where I angrily chastised the community for not participating in Linux Australia. The fury was in jest, but the call to arms was not.

It seems now that the media has grabbed a hold of the matter. Frankly, I’m glad that this issue has been brought to the fore. It has been a catalyst for contemplation and debate, which in my opinion is the hallmark of an open community. In my chats with various people over the matter, a few reasons crop up. These aren’t all necessarily true, but if they are believed by a substantial section of our community, they’d might as well be.

• I don’t want to pay anything

Membership of Linux Australia is free, as in beard! LA makes a tidy profit from LCA and sponsorships.

• I don’t know anything about LA
• I don’t see how LA is relevant to me
• I don’t see LA doing anything

These three are probably the most disturbing. LA must strive to market itself better and to prove its worth in the community. We’ve come a long way, but I do see some areas where we could improve. For instance, I’ve found over the years that many LCA attendees don’t understand the relationship between LA and LCA. LCA is an LA event, and we shouldn’t let anyone forget it. Other areas where we could improve include support for local groups, particularly LUGs. Various projects have been in the works for a while now, but unfortunately we’ve all been constrained by Real Life. We should be better utilising that famous open source scalability to fix these problems.

• LA is too opaque
• I’m not good enough to participate

The sentiments above are complete anathema to a working democracy, and they should be dispatched with accordingly. Yes it’s (generally) true that the open source world is a meritocracy, but that should not dissuade any casual person from having their input.

• I don’t know any of the candidates
• I don’t have any specific objections or preferences regarding the candidates

The former is a reflection of our diverse and geographically distributed community. The latter might have some crossover with apathy, but generally it’s an expression that none of the candidates are offensive enough to vote against (the blacklist approach to voting) or preferential enough to vote for. Enthusiasms can go both ways — an unpopular group of candidates might be enough to mobilise an increased number of votes against them.

• I can’t make it to the AGM, and so cannot vote
• I thought I was already a member after subscribing to the mailing lists
• I thought I was already a member after registering for linux.conf.au
• The voting form is difficult to find
• The voting system is confusing

These come down to the design and communication surrounding our Web properties. We use MemberDB as our online memberships and voting system, and hence there is no need to physically present yourself to vote (do it in your undies for all I care; just make sure the webcam is off). Each mailing list has a Mailman login, the Web site has another, and MemberDB has yet one more. LCA each year tends to have its own software infrastructure entirely. The voting form does indeed require much digging to reach. There’s plenty of scope here for streamlining.

• I didn’t know the election was on
• The voting period is too short
• My registration wasn’t approved (in time)
• I signed up during the voting period

The points above are mostly to do with process and procedure. Elections need to be publicised better. One person said to me that they were expecting a big ‘VOTE’ button on the front page of linux.org.au, linking directly to the ballot form. Maybe another Council member can correct me on this, but I gather it’s unofficial policy not to accept new memberships during the voting process. Given that MemberDB is designed to approximate the Australian electoral process, this should come as no surprise. However, this is not stated anywhere in public. Also, since new memberships must be manually confirmed (a precaution to stop spam and multiple sign-ups) there will be an appreciable lag in the approvals process. Don’t expect the Council to have any time to accept new sign-ups during or close to LCA.

I am yet to hear the old ‘one vote doesn’t make a difference’ excuse, but just in case, you can read here on why this attitude is not helpful.

I’d be interested to hear if you have any other reasons (and proposed solutions) for not registering with Linux Australia and voting in the elections. I’d recommend that you take part in the discussion on the linux-aus mailing list, otherwise you can post a comment here or contact me directly if you’d prefer some privacy.

I won’t pretend to have all the answers, or possess some magic map of where we should be going. I’m just another community member like anyone else, who is interested in seeing us move forwards. Please consider assisting LA to address these problems.

LotD: bluehackers.org

* yes, caps are mandatory

This is a follow-on from my last post, where I announced my candidacy for Linux Australia Council. I’ve posted this to the linux-aus mailing list, but thought it wouldn’t hurt going here as it raises issues that I feel are fundamental to Linux Australia’s existence.

I’m a candidate for Ordinary Committee Member (shouldn’t that be Ordinary Council Member now?). Before I repeat the spiel I made on the Elections page, I’d like to talk about what I feel LA represents in out community. There’s the obvious linux.conf.au, which proves year-after-year to be a world-class conference. Linux Australia represents the FOSS community throughout Australia (and going by LCA2006, perhaps also New Zealand in a way). It brings together the disparate groups throughout the country/region and gives them one voice. The community is thus able to be more influential as whole.

This leads into my original spiel, where I extoled the values of scalability in our community. Through enhanced support of grass-roots groups, Linux Australia will be able to grow the community in a more sustainable manner..

One pattern I discovered when examining previous LA elections is the low voter turnout. On most years the total number (not percentage) of votes was around 65-70. Why is this the case? Do we need to be doing more to engage the community? Are we not well-known enough? Are we not transparent enough? These are issues that we should be addressing.

The Linux Australia Council elections are in full swing, and I thought it only fair to abuse my blog to pimp my candidacy for an Ordinary Committee Member position. You’re an LA member (it’s free!), drop in and exercise your democratic right (i.e. vote for me :p ).

My official platform is as follows:

I have been participating in the FOSS community for over ten years. I have managed Linux Australia’s presences at CeBIT and the Education Expo. I have also represented LA at other events such as the Moodle Conference in 2006, and was the lead video encoder at the A/V Team at linux.conf.au 2007.

For the past two years I have been serving on the SLUG Committee (including one term as President), organising most of its meetings in that time and running events like Software Freedom Day.

A key focus of my efforts in the community over the past few years has been to foster co-operation between groups and contributors. As an Linux Australia Council member, I feel that I would be even more effective in this endeavour.

The wonderful thing about free software code development is that it can scale so well. I would like to see a similar level of scalability with the wider community outside of the coding realm. LA is uniquely positioned to provide the resources and support to enable community members and groups to achieve great things. The benefits of this are many-fold:

• it makes it easier to engage, hence breaking down separations between contributors and users;
• it grows the community of contributors;
• it allows us to do more and better things on the whole; and
• it aids to reduce dependence on a small group of actors, thereby addressing the ever-present danger of burn-out amongst contributors.

We must remember, however, that the ‘community’ is much larger than the membership of LA and LUGs. I have come across many people who are interested in some aspect of ‘Linux’ or ‘open source’ but know very little about LA or their local LUG. In many cases, their interests are more directly served by other groups, such as:

• industry associations (e.g. OSIA)
• language groups (Java, Python, etc.)
• other operating systems groups (OpenSolaris, Mac OS, etc.)
• standards bodies (IEEE, W3C, etc.)
• computer clubs
• groups devoted to a field (education, embedded, etc.)

LA has a fantastic community, but in the grand scheme of things it is but one of many. I hope - in an official Linux Australia capacity - to improve networking with these other organisations to grow the overall community and extend the reach of free and open source software to more sectors of society.

Last month I proposed that the FOSS community create an integrated software installer for Windows and Mac OS that only included FOSS applications. If Google can make Google Pack, I opined, why can’t we make a FOSS Pack?

As I had expected, my idea was already realised, at least in part. WinLibre and MacLibre provide a menu of free/libre software packages for the user to choose from, and can automatically install them for you.

That’s a big step in the right direction, albeit not the beauty we have on GNU/Linux through tools like Add/Remove Applications and apt-url. It haven’t tried them (I rarely use Windows and I don’t have a Mac), but here’s what I think they need to truly shine (based on my last post on the subject):

• an updates management service, that automatically checks for available updates and installs them for you
• an ability to cleanly remove the software just as easily as it was installed
• a file system scanner that recommends FOSS software to install, based on the software and file types it finds on the hard drive

Just for a second, put yourself in the shoes of an average PC user. You use the software that came with your computer, plus perhaps some others that you downloaded, bought in a box or ‘borrowed’ from a friend. You’ve heard some good things about something called “open source”, but you haven’t the foggiest clue of where to get it or what applications to try. You aren’t a technical person, have limited time and even less patience. Ultimately, you’re looking for something that ‘just works’ and is either free (of cost) or clearly better than what you’re using now. Why make the effort otherwise? Honestly, you’d rather be down at the pub watching the cricket with your mates.

How would free software advocates best woo such a person into their camp? They aren’t going to immediately repartition their hard drive and use GNU/Linux exclusively. They would more likely be willing to try some free software on their existing OS, provided that the barrier was sufficiently low. If you’re lucky, that toe-dip will lead to deeper immersion in the world of FOSS, and hopefully also into some appreciation of the philosophy beyond the practical.

If this person has a knowledgeable friend or pays attention to certain information sources, they might get some ideas on what software to use. Applications like Firefox and OpenOffice.org are fairly popular choices these days, but what about less publicised treasures like the GIMP or ClamWin? Sure, there are Web sites that let you search for FOSS equivalents to proprietary applications, but these still require some effort:

1. Search for the application you want.
2. Go to the Web site for that application.
3. Find the download page and pull it down.
4. Run the installer.
5. To uninstall, use Windows’ Add/Remove Programs.

These steps need to be performed for each application you wish to install, so can become tiresome very quickly.

How could we simplify this process? What I propose is a software management application. Let’s for the sake of brevity call it FOSS Pack, named after the closest analogue I can think of, Google Pack. The process is intended to be as simple as possible for the end user:

1. The user downloads a single application (FOSS Pack) and installs it.
2. When they launch FOSS Pack, they can select from a menu of categorised FOSS applications to install, similar to how a GUI package manager front-end works on (GNU/)Linux.
3. The user selects the applications they want, and then they are downloaded and installed in batch.
4. Uninstallation should be as simple as installation, all within FOSS Pack.

Here’s the killer feature: FOSS Pack should be able to scan the user’s system for proprietary applications. These are identified based on an internal list, which also contains information on FOSS alternatives to those applications. Those alternatives are presented for easy download and install.

FOSS Pack contains descriptions of each application, so the user doesn’t have to visit another Web site to understand what they do (although a hyperlink should be provided as well). The option should exist to be able to select only from applications that have Linux versions, as a means of facilitating an OS transition. FOSS pack should also be able to automatically check for updates at regular intervals, and offer to install them when available.

I’m not expecting any of this to be as clean as a real package management system. FOSS Pack will likely have to execute the external installers. Perhaps in the future the applications authors could co-operate with FOSS Pack maintainers to deliver a more seamless experience.

It looks to me that a lot of the pieces to create FOSS Pack are already there, and as is often the case in the FOSS world all that’s required is to tie them together in an appropriate way.

LotD: 30 Things That Are the Same In Microsoft Word and in OpenOffice.org Writer