Michael and Rhonda Hauben and others mentioned me as a pioneer netizen in the book about Netizens. At that time I did mention that I was involved in the instigation and creation of Netnews. It was later reported that Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis (who won an award for the creation of Usenet) dismissed my comments and indicated that they would have done it anyway.
My point is: neither Tom or Jim were the ones that selected which "news" program from the Conference Tape was installed on the Duke system. I was working on my Dad's PDP-11/20, which was in the same room as Computer Science's PDP-11/45 which was running UNIX, and was reading through the information pages that described the packages that were on the tape. I was intrigued by the various replacements for the "motd" and primitive "news" that were offered. Reading the three or so descriptions, I picked one that seemed most flexible and most organized. I asked Jim Ellis, one of the CS administrators, to roll that particular news program onto the system while he was loading another package from the tape. He did so, and I spent a little time at the console meshing the "checknews" program into the login sequence and creating an initial introduction to the news facility and putting a few reasonable directory hierarchies in place.
That was all I did. I didn't have any clue of what would come after that. I was not the one who interacted with the folks at UNC. I was not the one who noticed that they were using the same news program, nor was I the one to notice that there were similar topics in their news hierarchy. That was the genius of Tom and Jim et alia. The first implementation of the multi-system news synchronization between Duke and UNC was written as a set of shell scripts that used UUCP and crontabs to do the transfers after midnight.
I do recall one crisis point well. One evening Dr. Bierman, chairman of the Computer Science Department at the time, was anxiously waiting for and monitoring the progress of a numerical simulation program on the Duke UNIX machine. Along comes midnight, and the news synch script started doing its preparations for communicating with UNC. Dr. Bierman's simulation progress slowed way down and he got mad about it. One of the admins, I forget exactly who, quickly killed off the offending processes. Dr. Bierman almost made them take the remote news synch off the Duke machine. Fortunately, he didn't insist, but recommended that a more efficient method be developed.
Understand a few things about the situation in 1977. The modem was a 110 bps telephone dial-up link, and calls to Chapel Hill from Durham were "long-distance" because Durham was a GTE territory and Chapel Hill was an ATT territory. Midnight to 6AM was the lowest cost rate time, so the synchronization was slotted in that period. Also, the PDP-11/45 was a 16-bit system, and did not have either the speed nor the memory capacity that a modern smartphone has. The shell script based transfer system had to scan the news directory tree (which required a lot of slow disk access) and make a list of the day's topic postings. That list was then transferred to UNC, and UNC sent a similar list back. it might take an hour for the transfers of the lists to be done. After the lists were exchanged, the lists were compared to the existing tree (more slow disk access and file name analysis) to figure out what files from UNC would be needed, and UNC did the same thing with the list from Duke. Finally UUCP requests were generated to get the files from UNC and UNC set up a bunch of UUCP requests to fetch files from Duke. Then things waited on UNC to dial the Duke site, run all it's requests for files from Duke, which, even with compression, could take a few hours. And then Duke got to fetch files from UNC, which would take another couple of hours. Clearly, some better method was needed to limit the amount of work done at any one time.
Truscott, Ellis, and Steve Bellovin from UNC called for a meeting to discuss the problem. A fair number of Computer Science folk from Duke and UNC went to the pizza party at Mario's on the recently completed Durham-Chapel Hill Boulevard. I attended that meeting, ate pizza and listened more than talked. Out of this meeting arose a more formalized message format (make it look like an email) and a queuing protocol that scheduled a transfer when a message was posted, and a hierarchical naming system that placed the broadest category first, followed by a more specific category. This system was Netnews, and the nascent network was called Usenet.
Much of the development work was done via a serial connection between the Duke CS (duke) machine and the Department of Physiology machine (phs) that was just a 4-wire connection between two buildings on the Duke campus. UNC was doing much the same thing, and the dial-up transfers got accelerated by using 1200 and 2400 baud modems. This system was released to the wider UNIX community at another Usenix Conference, and promoted as "The Poor Man's ARPANet"
Then, like Topsy, "it just growed." Bell Laboratories at Murry Hill, the home of UNIX, joined when Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie had their machine (research) call Duke to pickup and send articles. Then research would connect to a site at the University of California at Berkeley (berkeley) and other sites at Bell Labs would call research and some other sites. Since Bell Labs was AT&T at the time, they had "free" calling to anywhere, without Bell Labs, Usenet would have been stillborn.
As the network grew, and traffic increased, it became clear that the original Netnews/Usenet/Bnews protocols needed a re-design. It had not anticipated the number of site that joined, and the huge increase of traffic that created. Another round of design and programming created the Cnews programs. This iteration allowed a practically unlimited depth to the topics hierarchy (although a convention called for being parsimonious with the topic tree) and allowed for loops in the distribution net. Since Berkeley and Bell Labs had connections to the ARPAnet, traffic between ARPAnet and Uesnet became possible. Topic trees containing posting from ARPAnet mail lists were placed in the "fa" (from ARPA) hierarchy, and a looser hierarchy called "net" was for everything else. For example, the SF-Lovers ARPAnet mail list was gated to "fa.sf-lovers" and general UNIX discussions took place in the "net.comp.os.unix.*" hierarchy.
By this time, my Dad's PDP-11/20 had been moved to another lab, and replaced by a PDP-11/34. The Duke Comp Sci machine had been upgraded to a PDP-11/70, and soon to a VAX-750.I was administrator for the 11/34 (duke34) and connected to the "duke" site via a null-modem serial line stretched across the floor between the two machines. The distribution tree of Usenet was semi-controlled by the Administrators of the "backbone" machines and new sites were encouraged to link via geographically nearby sites. The creation of new groups in the net hierarchy required a password, and at one point I called Bell Labs to get the password, since no one was around at DukeCS at the time. The Usenet protocol was based on UUCP, which used a routing name convention of "machine!machine!*!user" for email. From this it became convenient to refer to someone by their "bang path" from a well known backbone site. [I was duke!duke34!ggw]
As more sites joined, the "backbone" admins were getting less and less willing to take one new connections, and pushed new sites to the periphery unless they were willing to become a hub for their area. This reluctance led to the myth of the "Backbone Cabal" (tinc) who secretly controlled all of Usenet. The only time the Cabal acted in a directed manner was to nurture and direct the Great Renaming of the Usenet namespace. This moved from fa.* and net.* to the "Big 7" hierarchy of {comp, misc, news, rec, sci, soc, talk} later the humanities group was added. Around the time of the Great Renaming, a semi-formal convention was developed to limit the creation of new groups. This procedure and formality did not rest well with some users, and the wilderness of the alt.* hierarchy sprang up. Following the GR, the Cabal dissolved, and the Big-8 Management Board was created. (Now that is a real Cabal!) Wikipedia has a decent description of the modern Usenet.
[Fast forward to 1984, while I got married and worked as a consultant in the NY/NJ metro area for a couple of years.] Back at Duke, I was now System Programmer (Administrator) for the Center for Demographic Studies (dukecds) as we moved from a mainframe computing paradigm to a PC and Macintosh based network. I also got a PC at home, and ran UNIX on it, along with a BBS. This home site was "The Wolves Den BBS" and "duke!wolves!ggw" was my non-duke email id. There were lots of hassles along the way, including a possible tie-in to Operation Sun Devil FBI raids, accusations of "selling UNIX" (I considered out loud the possibility of selling dial-in access to the shell command line in addition to the BBS) and sexual innuendos. The Wolves Den BBS actually provided access to Usenet groups by request, and carried a fair amount for technical and social groups. I considered getting into FIDOnet and WWIV, but those connections did not happen on wolves. [Wolves Den had started on a Commodore 64 and later a C=128. Lots of fun with Commodore while it lasted.] At one point I had six computers on a home network.
In 2006, I applied for, and was eventually granted, disability for a number of ailments. In 2008, I lost my house in the housing bubble collapse and spent 14 months homeless. My wife had a quadruple by-pass heart graft, and eventually had several strokes, was institutionalized and died in 2011. Now I live with a family of choice, and by blood relatives (two older brother) live nearby as well. I have ADSL 11 Mbit internet service and a wired and wireless network of eight computers (2 linux, 4 windows 7, 1 xbox one, and an iMac) I fix PCs and laptops, do administration for a number of folks who don't have any idea of how their computers really work, and consult with local Karaoke Hosts who sometimes need help with integrating their computers with other devices for display and special effects. And I do volunteer work on several FOSS projects (testing and debugging linux.) The only difference between "work" and my current life is that I can take a nap or break anytime I need.
So, this is my commentary and recollection on the history of Usenet and my life.
RedWolfe's Wisdom
Various comments from 58+ years of experience.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Just saw some bees in the 'hood
I was out for a walk in the neighborhood today. While passing the power line greensward I looked at some black raspberry canebreaks to see how this years crop was going. Lo and behold, there were 4 or 5 honeybee-like insects feeding on the blooms.
It has been a few years since I have seen honeybee types in this area. We have the occasional Carpenter bees looking for some real wood to drill nests into, but no smaller bees. To see that many bees was a heartening sight. I am pretty sure they are honeybees, though I did not attempt to catch one or get too close. As a child I lived with an apple orchard and am familiar with honeybees and hives.
So, despite the fact that bees in this area have been sorely affected by Colony Collapse, there do seem to be some wild bees left. They pretty much have to be wild since there aren't any nearby locations that would call for commercial hive placement.
All is not lost, nature goes on despite the worst efforts of humankind.
It has been a few years since I have seen honeybee types in this area. We have the occasional Carpenter bees looking for some real wood to drill nests into, but no smaller bees. To see that many bees was a heartening sight. I am pretty sure they are honeybees, though I did not attempt to catch one or get too close. As a child I lived with an apple orchard and am familiar with honeybees and hives.
So, despite the fact that bees in this area have been sorely affected by Colony Collapse, there do seem to be some wild bees left. They pretty much have to be wild since there aren't any nearby locations that would call for commercial hive placement.
All is not lost, nature goes on despite the worst efforts of humankind.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Minor chemical spill in Durham, NC disrupts my life.
Friday, about midnight, a pipe carrying DHMO (DiHydrogen MonOxide) to a location used for cleaning burst inside the wall. The DHMO was released into the room, an adjacent bedroom on the same floor, and three rooms on the floor below.
It took about 35 minutes for the DFD to respond and shut of the supply line. They actually did not totally close off the line, and DHMO leaked until Saturday morning about 9am. The repair technician closed off the main supply completely, show us where the interior shutoff was (in a corner of a utility closet) and repaired the pipe.
Two of the downstairs rooms lost portions of their ceilings, and hundreds of items in a storage room were damaged and soaked by the universal solvent spill.
Fortunately, a DHMO cleanup group was available Saturday afternoon to begin the process of cleanup. They had a number of specialized tools for removing and storing the DHMO that I hadn't known of. There are some amazing advances in DHMO handling and removal developed since I last had to deal with such a spill.
So, here on Sunday afternoon, most of the DHMO is removed and the structure is dried and secure. The downstairs storage room is still being subject to forced ventilation and precipitation of the DHMO from the salvageable and unsalvageable items that are there.
I am grateful to my roommates for their promt reactions to this crisis. Without their assistance I would not have been able to deal with the flood. As I write, a fan is still drying the carpet in my room.
We still have to deal with repairs to the ceilings and walls in the downstairs rooms, but all leaks have been stopped and the main supply has been restored.
DHMO is a solvent used widely in the world for such applications as cleaning, waste removal and chemical reactions in food preparation. It isn't toxic in reasonable doses, but in sufficiently large volumes it can kill you or cause severe health effects. For more information, see http://dhmo.org
I should be okay, the only victim in this case is my mental equilibrium.
It took about 35 minutes for the DFD to respond and shut of the supply line. They actually did not totally close off the line, and DHMO leaked until Saturday morning about 9am. The repair technician closed off the main supply completely, show us where the interior shutoff was (in a corner of a utility closet) and repaired the pipe.
Two of the downstairs rooms lost portions of their ceilings, and hundreds of items in a storage room were damaged and soaked by the universal solvent spill.
Fortunately, a DHMO cleanup group was available Saturday afternoon to begin the process of cleanup. They had a number of specialized tools for removing and storing the DHMO that I hadn't known of. There are some amazing advances in DHMO handling and removal developed since I last had to deal with such a spill.
So, here on Sunday afternoon, most of the DHMO is removed and the structure is dried and secure. The downstairs storage room is still being subject to forced ventilation and precipitation of the DHMO from the salvageable and unsalvageable items that are there.
I am grateful to my roommates for their promt reactions to this crisis. Without their assistance I would not have been able to deal with the flood. As I write, a fan is still drying the carpet in my room.
We still have to deal with repairs to the ceilings and walls in the downstairs rooms, but all leaks have been stopped and the main supply has been restored.
DHMO is a solvent used widely in the world for such applications as cleaning, waste removal and chemical reactions in food preparation. It isn't toxic in reasonable doses, but in sufficiently large volumes it can kill you or cause severe health effects. For more information, see http://dhmo.org
I should be okay, the only victim in this case is my mental equilibrium.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Mystical Atheism Explained
I have called myself a "Mystical Atheist" for some time, and lately some folks asked my what can be mystical about atheism? I'll endeavor to explain.
Atheism is a claim that there is no God. I do not believe in a hyper intelligent, omnibenevolent and omniscient creator being. There is no rational reason for doing so, such a being is just not necessary to explain the operations of the cosmos. That is not to say that there is not some unknown impelling force that drives creation in a forward direction.
This impelling force is, so far, imperceptible to science. There are quite a few unknown answers in terms of why things happen the way they do. I think of this as a "divine principle" that humans can occasionally perceive as the numinous. Some may even be able to interact with this force.
Just what this "force" is, is similar to the problem of consciousness. We don't know (yet) and may never figure it out.
I can, myself, perceive the numinous in quite a few aspects of experiencing the beauty of the cosmos. I feel it when viewing a magnificent sunset, when I see an old friend after a long absence, and when contemplating the wonders of the physical rules that guide the universe. I know I am not alone in sensing this feeling of wonder and love. (Traditionally, the word used is "awe", but since is doesn't inspire fear of any kind, I can't agree with that usage.) This feeling is also at the core of the "mystical" experience treasured by spiritual and religious folk for ages.
As far as mystical experience goes, I have to say that the dichotomy between perennialism and constructionism is a false one. We humans are a conscious mind embedded in a vehicle of flesh. We don't know how or what consciousness is, but it is embedded in the chemistry of the neural circuits of the brain. This implies that the mystical experience will have a mechanical manifestation in the flesh that will be practically the same for all humans; but this will have to be expressed in verbal form (if possible) via the circuitry of language trained by the culture in which a person is embedded.
I don't care for the current direction of scientific philosophy that leans more and more to a purely mechanistic (or robotic) explanation of life. For example, it was not until this year (2014) that additional signaling methods were detected in the inner ear (via proton flow) to explain some of the continuous proprioception of spatial orientation. I don't see that a purely mechanistic model will ever be able to explain consciousness or free will. It will be a bad day for humanity if science declares with certainty that we have no choices in life.
Atheism is a claim that there is no God. I do not believe in a hyper intelligent, omnibenevolent and omniscient creator being. There is no rational reason for doing so, such a being is just not necessary to explain the operations of the cosmos. That is not to say that there is not some unknown impelling force that drives creation in a forward direction.
This impelling force is, so far, imperceptible to science. There are quite a few unknown answers in terms of why things happen the way they do. I think of this as a "divine principle" that humans can occasionally perceive as the numinous. Some may even be able to interact with this force.
Just what this "force" is, is similar to the problem of consciousness. We don't know (yet) and may never figure it out.
I can, myself, perceive the numinous in quite a few aspects of experiencing the beauty of the cosmos. I feel it when viewing a magnificent sunset, when I see an old friend after a long absence, and when contemplating the wonders of the physical rules that guide the universe. I know I am not alone in sensing this feeling of wonder and love. (Traditionally, the word used is "awe", but since is doesn't inspire fear of any kind, I can't agree with that usage.) This feeling is also at the core of the "mystical" experience treasured by spiritual and religious folk for ages.
As far as mystical experience goes, I have to say that the dichotomy between perennialism and constructionism is a false one. We humans are a conscious mind embedded in a vehicle of flesh. We don't know how or what consciousness is, but it is embedded in the chemistry of the neural circuits of the brain. This implies that the mystical experience will have a mechanical manifestation in the flesh that will be practically the same for all humans; but this will have to be expressed in verbal form (if possible) via the circuitry of language trained by the culture in which a person is embedded.
I don't care for the current direction of scientific philosophy that leans more and more to a purely mechanistic (or robotic) explanation of life. For example, it was not until this year (2014) that additional signaling methods were detected in the inner ear (via proton flow) to explain some of the continuous proprioception of spatial orientation. I don't see that a purely mechanistic model will ever be able to explain consciousness or free will. It will be a bad day for humanity if science declares with certainty that we have no choices in life.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Hope on the Horizon for Bedbug Sufferers
Suffering from an infestation of Cimex Lemicularis (AKA the Bedbug)? This ancient scourge of human sleepers has made a massive resurgence in some places in the US and Europe (and the rest of the world) in recent decades. This is mostly because it is no longer kept in check by pesticides. DDT, the most effective at controlling them, is now illegal to use in most of the world, and the critters are mostly tolerant and resistant to the pyrethrins that are the most used "over the counter" insecticides in the Americas.
A report out of Penn State in 2012 reports that a biological control agent in current use - Beauveria bassiana, a soil derived fungus - has some (!) effectiveness against C.Lemicularis. The insecticide is actually one of the more benign products available (there is a certified for "organic" use version) even though the MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheets) carry all the familiar insecticide warnings.
It is a highly tempting prospect to get some of the product and see if if works against ones own infestations, but the way the laws for pesticides in the US work, it is illegal to do that outside of an accredited research laboratory. [There is some anecdotal evidence from folks who have done so anyway.]
Meanwhile, we suffer along, waiting for a truly effective anti-bedbug product to be developed.
Beauveria bassiana is an interesting fungus. It occurs worldwide in various soil conditions and is one of the "clean-up" organisms that remove insect bodies from the environment. The spores come in contact with an insects chitinous cuticle and secrete an enzyme that penetrates the shell. It then grows on the inner flesh of the insect, and completes the cycle by forming sporing bodies on the cadaver.
It is approved for use on aphids, thrips, white fly and certain other insect pests, and in the organic formulation, may be used to protect organic produce from these pests in a "certified organic" manner. In the Penn State report it seems clear that they were using the organic formulation - talking about oil with and without spores in suspension - and the use of an airbrush applicator. Apparently the bedbugs pick up the fungus and carry it back to their "harborages" (nests) before succumbing (at >90% effectiveness) to the fungus which will then attack and kill the other bedbugs in the group.
If it can be shown that bedbugs cannot develop an immunity to the fungus, it may be that the old adage: "Sleep tight and don't let the bedbugs bite" will once again become a legendary warning.
A report out of Penn State in 2012 reports that a biological control agent in current use - Beauveria bassiana, a soil derived fungus - has some (!) effectiveness against C.Lemicularis. The insecticide is actually one of the more benign products available (there is a certified for "organic" use version) even though the MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheets) carry all the familiar insecticide warnings.
It is a highly tempting prospect to get some of the product and see if if works against ones own infestations, but the way the laws for pesticides in the US work, it is illegal to do that outside of an accredited research laboratory. [There is some anecdotal evidence from folks who have done so anyway.]
Meanwhile, we suffer along, waiting for a truly effective anti-bedbug product to be developed.
Beauveria bassiana is an interesting fungus. It occurs worldwide in various soil conditions and is one of the "clean-up" organisms that remove insect bodies from the environment. The spores come in contact with an insects chitinous cuticle and secrete an enzyme that penetrates the shell. It then grows on the inner flesh of the insect, and completes the cycle by forming sporing bodies on the cadaver.
It is approved for use on aphids, thrips, white fly and certain other insect pests, and in the organic formulation, may be used to protect organic produce from these pests in a "certified organic" manner. In the Penn State report it seems clear that they were using the organic formulation - talking about oil with and without spores in suspension - and the use of an airbrush applicator. Apparently the bedbugs pick up the fungus and carry it back to their "harborages" (nests) before succumbing (at >90% effectiveness) to the fungus which will then attack and kill the other bedbugs in the group.
If it can be shown that bedbugs cannot develop an immunity to the fungus, it may be that the old adage: "Sleep tight and don't let the bedbugs bite" will once again become a legendary warning.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
This posting is derived from a convergence of several discussions I have been having in a wide variety of places.
Background:
I trained in Computer Science and Biological Sciences at the same time in the early 1970's. There are some interesting convergences between the two in some recent developments.
My thesis here is that complex organisms developed differentiated tissue systems (organs) in response to a need for robustness and continued operation (health) in the face of complex and unknowable challenges. The computing environment has similarities to a complex organism, such that differentiated tissues (operating environments) are needed to preserve operations in the face of significant and unknown challenges.
This quoted partial posting, is from a discussion on the merits/demerits of maintaining a separation between one part of the computer's data store and another. There is history and experience favoring both sides of the argument, however some of those opposed to maintaining the separation are being dismissive of some of the concerns of those in favor of the separation.
On Linux based operating systems computer files are organized in a single hierarchy (whereas on Windows based operating systems the files are organized in multiple separate disk structures – within each Windows disk, files are stored in similar hierarchical structures.) Linux does, in fact, have multiple disk structures, but they are, by default, all linked together in a single tree. With a bit of effort, Windows can also be setup to provide a unified tree.
The root of the filesystem tree is generally a disk structure equivalent to the Windows “C:” drive, and the argument revolves around whether or not major parts of the files required for user use (such as the Windows “C:\Program Files” folder) should be on a separate disk partition from the files required for the system to boot up (such as may be found in the Windows “C:\Windows”folder.)
The usr filesystem was separate from root from the very early days of UNIX. Disks were tiny (compared to today) and spreading certain things across separate spindles provided major benefits. Certainly, the original need to require a separate usr went away fairly quickly, but other benefits continued to encourage a separation between root and usr. [Among the chief advantages is the ability to mount a separate usr filesystem in a read-only mode, helping to prevent intentional or un-intentional changes to the programs.]
The var filesystem was for variable system data, and was never terribly big and its inclusion on the root volume happened. The home filesystem became traditionally separate because data expands to fill all available space, and users collect things.
Networking made it possible to have home entirely off system, and diskless workstations ruled for a while as well.
By the time Linux came along, it was common for boot volumes to not be mounted during normal system operation, but the three filesystem layout (root, usr and home all on separate partitions) was common and workable. As Linux continued to be like Topsy (“she jest growed!”) fragmentation started to occur as "distributions" arose. The "balkanization" of Linux distributions became a real concern to some and standardization efforts were encouraged. I note for completeness that currently the Linux boot process only has the ability to mount one root partition to start with and the tools and programs necessary to find, prepare and mount the rest of the system files.
The "File System Standard" (FSS) was renamed to the “Filesystem Hierarchy Standard” (FHS) and it was strongly based on the UNIX System V definition (which called for separation of ''usr'' and ''root''.) POSIX added more layers and attempted to bring the various BSD flavors of UNIX into the fold.
The LSB (Linux Standards Base) effort was conceived as superseding all the other efforts, and FHS was folded into the LSB definition. Yet even then a separate ''root'' and ''usr'' distinction survived. Then things started falling apart again - POSIX rose like a phoenix and even the Windows/Intel environment could claim POSIX compliant behavior. The fall of the LSB effort really became evident when the FHS was gutted and certain major players decided to ignore the LSB recommendations.
(Look out, there are some severely mixed metaphors coming and perhaps even some "allegory" Bear with it and you should get the gist of my accusations.)
And now we are here in time. There is no clear definition of what comprises this operating system that is a Linux kernel and a largely GNU based user-land. There are two major X-Window based "Desktop Environments" (DEs) and many less major DEs, and Linux is seen as being "locked in a struggle" with the Microsoft OS's to "win the hearts and minds of the Users."
This is quite scary to many folks who depend on the success of Linux "winning" the so-called war. One of the camps bent on wining the "war" is GNOME. Despite much history and experience that shows that choice and freedom are NOT disadvantages, the mainline GNOME folks have charged ahead on their own in a direction that overrides user choice and seems bound and determined to "outdo" Microsoft at their own game.
As a result, the GNOME Alliance has shattered. The main GNOME army marches on its unfathomable path, and various large chunks have broken off in their own directions (e.g. Cinnamon and Mate) seeking to remain flexible and not incompatible with the KDE and other lesser DE systems.
The breakage of the root and usr filesystem separability may be laid directly at the feet of GNOME. Practically all of the breakage is derived from the GNOME camp. These changes may not, in fact, be deliberate or intended to "defeat" Microsoft, but Ockham's Razor cuts and intention is the simpler explanation.
I am not prone to conspiracy theories, but an examination of the history does show that a few, specific ''entities'' (people and companies) have created this dilemma. A set of changes were introduced in the boot-up process of Linux systems, and some required supporting programs and libraries (DLLs) were placed in the ''usr'' filesystem despite many folks pointing out that this was not a good idea.
I am NOT happy with the situation as it stands. Efforts that I made on behalf of the FOSS community and Linux/GNU in particular are no longer serving to benefit me and the others with whom I thought I shared aspirations.
I am an OS Agnostic/Atheist. I use what works to do what I need to do. My at-home network includes all four (or is that 3.5?) "consumer" OSes.
I have spent quite a bit of effort to have them all work together, but forces seem to be in play that seem determined to "win at all costs" and enforce a computing mono-culture. Such a result is not a good thing. As with biological systems, mono-cultures are more vulnerable to interference and disease. The evolution of differentiated organ systems in more complex (or "higher") forms of life is driven by the need to provide robustness and continued operation in the face of unknown challenges.
This reference to mono-cultures is a bit dated but it is still the case that in the environment less diverse systems are much less able to deal with pollution and invasive species than more diverse environments are. As an analogy, consider the effects of computer malware. The widespread phenomena of malware infection in Microsoft Windows installations is well-known and is generally perceived to be the result of known vulnerabilities being exploited in the Windows mono-culture. While Macintosh and Linux/GNU exploits are not unknown, they are less of a problem because they occur in more robust systems and can be healed quickly. Android devices will become more vulnerable as their numbers grow and fewer users regularly update their devices. There is some inborn resistance though, there are multiple versions of Android in the field, and exploits on one version may not be exploitable on a slightly different version.
To iterate the thesis: robustness and flexibility are required for good "health" and we are facing dangerous challenges.
Background:
I trained in Computer Science and Biological Sciences at the same time in the early 1970's. There are some interesting convergences between the two in some recent developments.
My thesis here is that complex organisms developed differentiated tissue systems (organs) in response to a need for robustness and continued operation (health) in the face of complex and unknowable challenges. The computing environment has similarities to a complex organism, such that differentiated tissues (operating environments) are needed to preserve operations in the face of significant and unknown challenges.
This quoted partial posting, is from a discussion on the merits/demerits of maintaining a separation between one part of the computer's data store and another. There is history and experience favoring both sides of the argument, however some of those opposed to maintaining the separation are being dismissive of some of the concerns of those in favor of the separation.
On Linux based operating systems computer files are organized in a single hierarchy (whereas on Windows based operating systems the files are organized in multiple separate disk structures – within each Windows disk, files are stored in similar hierarchical structures.) Linux does, in fact, have multiple disk structures, but they are, by default, all linked together in a single tree. With a bit of effort, Windows can also be setup to provide a unified tree.
The root of the filesystem tree is generally a disk structure equivalent to the Windows “C:” drive, and the argument revolves around whether or not major parts of the files required for user use (such as the Windows “C:\Program Files” folder) should be on a separate disk partition from the files required for the system to boot up (such as may be found in the Windows “C:\Windows”folder.)
On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, VAH wrote:
...
> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not
> the root cause of the problem.
>
> The problems were caused by people saying that separate /usr was a good
> idea, so / would not fill up and similar idiocies. The problems were
> caused by people saying that lvm is a good idea - for desktops. Those
> people who are fighting against the kernel auto assembling raids are to
> blame too.
>
> Systemd is just another point in a very long list.
>
The usr filesystem was separate from root from the very early days of UNIX. Disks were tiny (compared to today) and spreading certain things across separate spindles provided major benefits. Certainly, the original need to require a separate usr went away fairly quickly, but other benefits continued to encourage a separation between root and usr. [Among the chief advantages is the ability to mount a separate usr filesystem in a read-only mode, helping to prevent intentional or un-intentional changes to the programs.]
The var filesystem was for variable system data, and was never terribly big and its inclusion on the root volume happened. The home filesystem became traditionally separate because data expands to fill all available space, and users collect things.
Networking made it possible to have home entirely off system, and diskless workstations ruled for a while as well.
By the time Linux came along, it was common for boot volumes to not be mounted during normal system operation, but the three filesystem layout (root, usr and home all on separate partitions) was common and workable. As Linux continued to be like Topsy (“she jest growed!”) fragmentation started to occur as "distributions" arose. The "balkanization" of Linux distributions became a real concern to some and standardization efforts were encouraged. I note for completeness that currently the Linux boot process only has the ability to mount one root partition to start with and the tools and programs necessary to find, prepare and mount the rest of the system files.
The "File System Standard" (FSS) was renamed to the “Filesystem Hierarchy Standard” (FHS) and it was strongly based on the UNIX System V definition (which called for separation of ''usr'' and ''root''.) POSIX added more layers and attempted to bring the various BSD flavors of UNIX into the fold.
The LSB (Linux Standards Base) effort was conceived as superseding all the other efforts, and FHS was folded into the LSB definition. Yet even then a separate ''root'' and ''usr'' distinction survived. Then things started falling apart again - POSIX rose like a phoenix and even the Windows/Intel environment could claim POSIX compliant behavior. The fall of the LSB effort really became evident when the FHS was gutted and certain major players decided to ignore the LSB recommendations.
(Look out, there are some severely mixed metaphors coming and perhaps even some "allegory" Bear with it and you should get the gist of my accusations.)
And now we are here in time. There is no clear definition of what comprises this operating system that is a Linux kernel and a largely GNU based user-land. There are two major X-Window based "Desktop Environments" (DEs) and many less major DEs, and Linux is seen as being "locked in a struggle" with the Microsoft OS's to "win the hearts and minds of the Users."
This is quite scary to many folks who depend on the success of Linux "winning" the so-called war. One of the camps bent on wining the "war" is GNOME. Despite much history and experience that shows that choice and freedom are NOT disadvantages, the mainline GNOME folks have charged ahead on their own in a direction that overrides user choice and seems bound and determined to "outdo" Microsoft at their own game.
As a result, the GNOME Alliance has shattered. The main GNOME army marches on its unfathomable path, and various large chunks have broken off in their own directions (e.g. Cinnamon and Mate) seeking to remain flexible and not incompatible with the KDE and other lesser DE systems.
The breakage of the root and usr filesystem separability may be laid directly at the feet of GNOME. Practically all of the breakage is derived from the GNOME camp. These changes may not, in fact, be deliberate or intended to "defeat" Microsoft, but Ockham's Razor cuts and intention is the simpler explanation.
I am not prone to conspiracy theories, but an examination of the history does show that a few, specific ''entities'' (people and companies) have created this dilemma. A set of changes were introduced in the boot-up process of Linux systems, and some required supporting programs and libraries (DLLs) were placed in the ''usr'' filesystem despite many folks pointing out that this was not a good idea.
I am NOT happy with the situation as it stands. Efforts that I made on behalf of the FOSS community and Linux/GNU in particular are no longer serving to benefit me and the others with whom I thought I shared aspirations.
I am an OS Agnostic/Atheist. I use what works to do what I need to do. My at-home network includes all four (or is that 3.5?) "consumer" OSes.
I have spent quite a bit of effort to have them all work together, but forces seem to be in play that seem determined to "win at all costs" and enforce a computing mono-culture. Such a result is not a good thing. As with biological systems, mono-cultures are more vulnerable to interference and disease. The evolution of differentiated organ systems in more complex (or "higher") forms of life is driven by the need to provide robustness and continued operation in the face of unknown challenges.
This reference to mono-cultures is a bit dated but it is still the case that in the environment less diverse systems are much less able to deal with pollution and invasive species than more diverse environments are. As an analogy, consider the effects of computer malware. The widespread phenomena of malware infection in Microsoft Windows installations is well-known and is generally perceived to be the result of known vulnerabilities being exploited in the Windows mono-culture. While Macintosh and Linux/GNU exploits are not unknown, they are less of a problem because they occur in more robust systems and can be healed quickly. Android devices will become more vulnerable as their numbers grow and fewer users regularly update their devices. There is some inborn resistance though, there are multiple versions of Android in the field, and exploits on one version may not be exploitable on a slightly different version.
To iterate the thesis: robustness and flexibility are required for good "health" and we are facing dangerous challenges.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Gun Control and the "Stigma" of Mental Illness
In current American society (Jan 2013) there is a stigma attached to having a "mental illness." This arises from several situations; the historical perception that the mentally ill are all violent and dangerous, the adverse light that Hollywood still paints the mentally ill with, and the lack of social and governmental support for differentiating the ill from the deranged by appropriate treatment. The current social furor over gun control in the wake of the Newtown, CT school shooting there is a focus on the role of mental illness in these incidents of domestic terror. In several incidents the perpetrators were under care for mental illness, but still had access to guns designed for mass slaughter.
Whether there should be general public access to such weapons should not be the focus of the debate. What should be in focus is the question of responsibility for proper training in the use of any firearms.
Being mentally ill does not mean that the sufferer is "insane" (which has the specific meaning of not being able to discern the difference between "right" and "wrong") and doesn't remove the person from being responsible for their actions. There is also no accepted definition of mental health that can adequately determine whether any given individual is or is not a "safe" person to carry a gun. Many folks who should not have access to guns because they may be dangerous to themselves or others have absolutely no history of mental illness. Additionally, the ability to be a "safe" gun carrier can change with astounding swiftness in the face of non-psychological health problems.
The rush to change the background check system for gun ownership has some good points, but also is fraught with a dangerous false perception that those who "pass" the check are safe to have guns. Unless there are means of assuring there are not huge cracks in the system for people to fall through, the current set of solutions being proposed are, perhaps, worse than useless in preventing future gun incidents.
There is also now more stigma that will be associated with seeking assistance from the mental health system: doing so will prevent one from exercising their constitutional rights, and that is a slippery slope that we have no knowing of what other rights may be curtailed. I suspect that adding to this stigma will lead to a more active avoidance of seeking help for mental health issues than currently exists.
I have some anecdotal evidence that there are folks who are actively avoiding help for mental distress in that I personally know some folks whom I would not trust with a gun in my presence who absolutely reject any suggestion that they consider getting some assistance for their problems. Yet a few of these people do have guns and speak of their use in occasionally threatening ways. (They make statements, all too often, along the lines of "I'd love to shoot that ______")
We might handle this by setting up a means of alerting authorities to these folks by "turning them in", but that leads to a culture of betrayal that further erodes the web of trust that a community needs to thrive. This web of trust is already suffering from the distrust that Americans feel for their government and the politicians that run it. The effect of the government using its powers to curtail even more civil rights and assume more control will do more to harm society than nearly anything else they could do.
No, this is not saying there is a conspiracy on the part of the politicians and power elite to attain more control. It is important to remember the pragmatic advice of "never attribute to malice the results of stupidity". In my opinion, the helter-skelter running around on the part of different factions within the government and society argue against there being a unified shadow government running things in secret. Divide and conquer is a good method of control, but the absolute lack of a coherent, all-explaining theory argues against any conspiracy.
I don't have any answer for the gun control debate, and I see valid arguments for and against both/all sides of the debate, but U hope that somehow America will muddle through to some dynamic compromise that allows us to survive a few more decades.
Whether there should be general public access to such weapons should not be the focus of the debate. What should be in focus is the question of responsibility for proper training in the use of any firearms.
Being mentally ill does not mean that the sufferer is "insane" (which has the specific meaning of not being able to discern the difference between "right" and "wrong") and doesn't remove the person from being responsible for their actions. There is also no accepted definition of mental health that can adequately determine whether any given individual is or is not a "safe" person to carry a gun. Many folks who should not have access to guns because they may be dangerous to themselves or others have absolutely no history of mental illness. Additionally, the ability to be a "safe" gun carrier can change with astounding swiftness in the face of non-psychological health problems.
The rush to change the background check system for gun ownership has some good points, but also is fraught with a dangerous false perception that those who "pass" the check are safe to have guns. Unless there are means of assuring there are not huge cracks in the system for people to fall through, the current set of solutions being proposed are, perhaps, worse than useless in preventing future gun incidents.
There is also now more stigma that will be associated with seeking assistance from the mental health system: doing so will prevent one from exercising their constitutional rights, and that is a slippery slope that we have no knowing of what other rights may be curtailed. I suspect that adding to this stigma will lead to a more active avoidance of seeking help for mental health issues than currently exists.
I have some anecdotal evidence that there are folks who are actively avoiding help for mental distress in that I personally know some folks whom I would not trust with a gun in my presence who absolutely reject any suggestion that they consider getting some assistance for their problems. Yet a few of these people do have guns and speak of their use in occasionally threatening ways. (They make statements, all too often, along the lines of "I'd love to shoot that ______")
We might handle this by setting up a means of alerting authorities to these folks by "turning them in", but that leads to a culture of betrayal that further erodes the web of trust that a community needs to thrive. This web of trust is already suffering from the distrust that Americans feel for their government and the politicians that run it. The effect of the government using its powers to curtail even more civil rights and assume more control will do more to harm society than nearly anything else they could do.
No, this is not saying there is a conspiracy on the part of the politicians and power elite to attain more control. It is important to remember the pragmatic advice of "never attribute to malice the results of stupidity". In my opinion, the helter-skelter running around on the part of different factions within the government and society argue against there being a unified shadow government running things in secret. Divide and conquer is a good method of control, but the absolute lack of a coherent, all-explaining theory argues against any conspiracy.
I don't have any answer for the gun control debate, and I see valid arguments for and against both/all sides of the debate, but U hope that somehow America will muddle through to some dynamic compromise that allows us to survive a few more decades.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)