Blog Fiasco

April 25, 2012

Fedora release names

Filed under: Linux,Musings — Tags: , , — bcotton @ 9:25 pm

Last week, the voting for the Fedora 18 release name was opened, along with an announcement that the board is considering whether or not to continue the practice. Undoubtedly, this is a reaction to some of the hand-wringing over naming Fedora 17 “Beefy Miracle.” Yes, Beefy Miracle is a silly name. Yes, it is likely to be forgotten shortly after the release.

My own position is somewhat ambivalent. The naming process is democratic, and represents the Fedora Project as a whole. The fact that names will sometimes be silly or offensive to a cultural group is part of life in a democracy. The naming process provides a little bit of fun near the end of the release cycle when life gets hectic for contributors. Perhaps the most important aspect of the name is that it provides a theme around which artwork and release announcements can be crafted.

On the other hand, if the release names go away, I can’t say that I’d really care. Release names tend to be forgettable for most distributions (Ubuntu and Debian releases are the ones I’ve ever heard people refer to by name in conversation), and I don’t think it would be any loss to the Fedora community or product if naming went away. To be honest, I’ve already forgotten how I voted in that poll. Whatever the community decides is fine, so long as we continue to remain a community.

March 29, 2012

How Richard Stallman got me to ponder extremism

Filed under: Linux,Musings,The Internet — Tags: , , , , , — bcotton @ 10:17 pm

This evening, I had the opportunity to attend a speech by a man whose work over the past decades enters into my life on a daily basis. The Network for Computational Nanotechnology at Purdue hosted Richard Stallman, the founder of the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation. Stallman is a well-known and controversial figure, not only because of his technical work, but also (primarily?) because of his idealism and activism. His un-nuanced views and public lack of tact have driven fans of his work away from the FSF. I went into the talk expecting some pot-stirring. I didn’t expect to walk out deep in thought.

Stallman opened with a discussion of terminology, drawing a distinction between free (for the purposes of this post, free software means libre, not gratis) and proprietary software.  It is an ethical, social, and political distinction, not a technical one. Free software, Stallman argues, is a contribution to society. Proprietary software is morally unjust. Stallman prefers, given the choice between writing proprietary software and doing nothing, that developers do nothing. Even though free software is often available at no cost, encouraging the adoption of free software should be framed as a moral issue, not an economic or practical one. Software as a Service (SaaS) is morally equal to proprietary software in Stallman’s view, regardless of the licensing of the software, because users have no control over it.

During the question-and-answer session at the end, this view brought a heated discussion from NCN director Dr. Gerhard Klimeck. NCN runs nanoHUB, which is effectively SaaS for nanotechnology simulation. Stallman seemed to argue that it was a niche and not really important to discuss. He also semi-adroitly dodged the question of how developers can make money with free software, only asserting that it is being done without providing the [mostly student] audience any insights as to how.

Stallman’s views are based on his personal morality and seem to be absolute. This is what occupied my thoughts on the walk back to my car. Because I largely agree with Stallman, I’ve been inclined to see his extremism as an annoying, but useful thing. By being on the edge, he defines the middle. But why should extremism that I happen to generally agree with be more valid than extremism that I disagree with? While extremism does help define the middle ground, it also poisons reasonable discussion. I admire and appreciate his technical accomplishments, but I think he hurts his own ideological cause.

March 28, 2012

Book Review: The Deadline

Filed under: Linux,Musings — Tags: , — bcotton @ 9:11 pm

Project management is an underrepresented genre in fiction. That it even exists is probably no small surprise to many, and probably of interested to even fewer. There is very little about project management that the average reader would find sexy or thrilling. Fortunately, Tom DeMarco makes no attempts at either (despite the occasional hint of a romantic undercurrent).

I wasn’t sure what to expect when my professor mentioned this book in class recently — perhaps a dashing project manager who sweeps through saving the day and buckling swashes at every opportunity. Instead, the reader is given Webster Tompkins, a competent and entirely normal project manager with years of experience and a looming layoff (or, in the words of Mr. Tompkins’ barely fictitious employer: “Released to Seek Opportunities Elsewhere”). While dozing in the back of an assembly, Tompkins is whisked off to the former Soviet state of Morovia. The Noble National Leader plans to turn his small country into the world leader in shrink-wrapped software, and Tompkins is just the man to lead the way.

What sets The Deadline apart as a novel is its entirely unconcealed intention to be a learning tool. The plot, exaggerated conditions and all, serves as a framework to present critical project management wisdom. Conveniently, Tompkins keeps a journal in which is writes these lessons as they occur, condensing the knowledge into bite-sized nuggets. What sets The Deadline apart as a learning tool is its readability. Although this book could readily be used in a formal project management course, it is interesting and well-written. Unlike the dialogue in project management scenarios given in textbooks (which, with apologies to Whitten and Dittman, is lousy), The Deadline reads like actual conversations had been transcribed. The end result is an informative and entertaining read that goes by far too quickly.

Perhaps the most striking thing about DeMarco’s novel is the publication date: 1997. At no time during my reading did I find myself thinking “boy, I’m sure glad that problem is solved now.” Although the nature of IT has changed in the decade and a half since The Deadline was written, the lessons are still very applicable. Especially when it comes to managing the human resources, it seems the lessons are still being relearned by each successive generation of managers (or sometimes not). Being a systems engineer and not a developer may slant my view of the current state, and it is entirely likely that software development managers have absorbed these lessons better. Until then, this book should required reading for every IT manager, project manager or otherwise.

March 18, 2012

New addition to the Forecast Discussion Hall of Fame

Filed under: Funnel Fiasco,Weather — Tags: , — bcotton @ 10:44 pm

The Forecast Discussion Hall of Fame has a new entry tonight. It seems a forecaster in the Nashville office has worked one too many midnight shifts. The latest addition includes allusions to dog waste and a discussion of the use of prepositions to end sentences. Enjoy!

February 25, 2012

Gannett paywalls: suicide or savior?

Filed under: Musings,The Internet — Tags: , , , — bcotton @ 11:21 am

Edited at 11:48 AM on 25 February to add a reference to the hiring of digital staff. Thanks to @HenryHoward for pointing out that omisssion.

Full disclosure: I am on the Reader Advisory Panel for, and am an uncompensated contributor to, my local Gannett property. While I have several friends at the Journal and Courier, I do not claim any particular inside knowledge of the workings of that paper, nor of Gannett in general. My opinions are my own and stem from my observations as a subscriber and once-monthly visitor to the conference room. I am no expert on the business of journalism.

Earlier this week, the Journal and Courier set up a paywall for online content. It is an early adopter of what appears to be a Gannett-wide initiative to limit online access to subscribers. There are several fairly trivial tricks available to circumvent this paywall, not to mention the simple use of multiple devices/browsers, which suggests to me that they’re not super-serious about enforcing access. Technological workarounds aside, there has been some heated discussion locally.

To some degree, I feel bad for the staff at the J&C. The staff have worked diligently in the face of layoffs, furloughs, and budget cuts. Locally, at least, the realization was made that they can no longer be a newspaper, but a newsoutlet. To that end, they’ve embraced (some more than others) real-time reporting via Twitter and additional analysis in blog posts. Online databases have been added, including public salaries, property tax information, and even pet registrations. The local staff get it, even if they’ve been hamstrung by corporate mandates.

For years I’ve been saying “give me a full version of the paper that I can read on my phone, and I’ll stop making you print a dead-tree version for me.” Of course, the local staff had no control over that, but Gannett finally decided it was time to make that available. They even have an iPhone app. The Android app is “coming soon.” (As a sidebar, I think it’s pretty stupid to not have an app ready for Android at release, considering Android’s market share is fairly close to that of iOS.) A generic tablet version, which isn’t quite as responsive is also available via a dedicated URL.

Given the financial difficulties, it’s no surprise that the staff seem to mostly support the paywall (or are at least unwilling to publicly speak against the company line). They really want to get paid for their work, and I don’t blame them. The real problem, in my opinion, is taking something that was once free and making it no longer free. There seems to be general agreement that local news is useful, but the amount people are willing to pay is less unanimous. Some options, like local news stations, remain free.

Over-the-air TV is free because it is paid for by advertisers (i.e. viewers are the product, not the customer). With newspaper historically, and newswhatever-Gannett-becomes in the future, the model is a little bit different. Ad sales help subsidize the cost, but do not cover the entirety. (I’ve heard, but cannot verify, that ads cover most of the cost of producing the content and that newsstand and subscription fees cover the delivery costs. It certainly makes sense, especially considering that there is an increased distribution cost per subscriber, whereas a TV antenna only gets cheaper on a per-viewer basis as more people tune in.) There is unquestionably value in original, professional local reporting and providing that content is not free.

I do believe this will be a risk for Gannett’s bottom line. Will enough people pick up online subscriptions to make up for lost page views? For myself, the day I can no longer read the Louisville Courier-Journal’s [paltry] Indiana section is the day I go instead to TV websites for news from my homeland. Gannett’s real problem is that they’ve tried for too long to remain a newspaper company and have slashed costs instead of investing in 21st century reporting. What if, instead of laying off staff, they added people to generate more unique online content? What if people could go to their local newspaper website during severe weather for uninterrupted streaming coverage instead of waiting for a TV station to break in?

After years of falling subscription rates and stock prices (down over 75% in the last five years), Gannett finally seems to be embracing the modern world. But unless they can create the impression that the paywall-protected content is better than what they used to offer for free, the move may be too late. The Journal and Courier is preparing to add four staff members focused on digital content. Hopefully, this will allow them to create that value-add before too many potential subscribers give up.

February 8, 2012

New discussions in the Hall of Fame

Filed under: Funnel Fiasco — Tags: , — bcotton @ 9:54 pm

Thanks to Tony Cristaldi, I’ve added a couple of new discussions to the Hall of Fame. They’re a bit hard to read because they’re scans of printed discussions from 17 years ago. I can’t say much for the meteorological quality of the discussions because I haven’t actually read them. The real beauty is in the artwork. I hope Forecaster Moore got as much enjoyment writing these and I’ve had looking at them.

January 28, 2012

Book review: The Visible Ops Handbook

Filed under: HPC/HTC,Linux — Tags: , , , , — bcotton @ 2:42 pm

I first heard of The Visible Ops Handbook during Ben Rockwood’s LISA ’11 keynote. Since Ben seemed so excited about it, I added it to the list of books I should (but probably would never) read. Then Matt Simmons mentioned it in a brief blog post and I decided that if I was ever going to get around to reading it, I needed to stop putting it off. I bought it that afternoon, and a month later I’ve finally had a chance to read it and write a review. Given the short length and high quality of this book, it’s hard to justify such a delay.

Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) training has been a major push in my organization the past few years. ITIL is a formalized framework for IT service management, but seems to be unfavored in the sysadmin community. After sitting through the foundational training, my opinion was of the “it sounds good, but…” variety. The problem with ITIL training and the official documentation is that you’re told what to do without ever being told how to do it. Kevin Behr, Gene Kim, and George Spafford solve that problem in less than 100 pages.

Based on observations and research of high-performing IT teams, The Visible Ops Handbook assumes that no ITIL practices are being followed. Implementation of the ITIL basics is broken down into four phases. Each phase includes real-world accounts, the benefits, and likely resistance points. This arms the reader with the tools necessary to sell the idea to management and sysadmins alike.

The introduction addresses a very important truism: “Something must need improvement, otherwise why read this?” The authors present a general recap of their findings, including these compelling statistics: 80% of outages are self-inflicted and 80% of mean time to repair (MTTR) is often wasted on non-productive activities (e.g. trying to figure out what changed).

Phase 1 focuses on “stabilizing the patient.” The goal is to reduce unplanned work from 80% of outage time to 25% or less. To do this, triage the most critical systems that generate the most unplanned work. Control when and how changes are made and fence off the systems to prevent unauthorized changes. While exceptions might be tempting, they should be avoided. The authors state that “all high performing IT organizations have only one acceptable number of unauthorized changes: zero.”

After reading Phase 1, I already had an idea to suggest. My group handles change management fairly well, but we don’t track requests for change (RFCs) well. Realizing how important that is, I convinced our groups manager and our best developer that it was a key feature to add to our configuration management database (CMDB) system.

In Phase 2, the reader performs a catch & release program and find “fragile artifacts.” Fragile infrastructure are those systems or services with a low change success rate and high MTTR. After all systems have been “bagged and tagged”, it’s time to make a CMDB and a service catalog. This phase is the next place that my group needs to do work. We have a pretty nice CMDB that’s integrated with our monitoring systems and our job schedulers, but we lack a service catalog. Users can look at the website and see what we offer, but that’s only a subset of the services we run.

Phase 3 focuses on creating a repeatable build library. The best IT organizations make infrastructure easier to build than repair. A definitive software library, containing master images for all software necessary to rebuild systems, is critical. For larger groups, forming a separate release management team to engineer repeatable builds for the different services is helpful. The release management team should be separate from the operational group and consist of generally senior staff.

The final phase discusses continual improvement. If everyone stopped at “best practices”, no one would have a competitive advantage. Suggested metrics for each key process area are listed and explained. After all, you can’t manage what you can’t measure. Finding out what areas are the worst makes it easier to decide what to improve upon.

The last third of the book consists of appendices that serve as useful references for the four phases. One of the appendices includes a suggested table layout for a CMDB system. The whole book is focused on the practical nature of ITIL implementation and guiding organizational learning. At times, it assumes a large staff (especially when discussing separation of duties), so some of the ideas will have to be adapted to meet the needs of smaller groups. Nonetheless, this book is an invaluable resource to anyone involve in IT operations.

January 26, 2012

Privacy in the 21st century (or at least this week)

Filed under: The Internet — Tags: , , , — bcotton @ 6:57 pm

Digital privacy has been in the news this week. The first story involves a judge ordering a woman to decrypt her laptop. There has been a lot of uninformed commentary surrounding this story, and I thought I’d add my own to the pile. My initial reaction was that it was a pretty blatant violation of the Fifth Amendment, but after further reflection, I’m not so sure. I still struggle to find the right parallel to the physical world.

I don’t believe that decrypting the data is self-incrimination, in and of itself. A person can’t avoid a search warrant by simply locking the door. On the other hand, the police already have the data (in some form) in their possession. There’s no requirement that the data be in a form that the state finds convenient.

Overall, I’m not that concerned with this decision. A valid warrant should be sufficient to require a person to turn over documents in an unencrypted form. Failure to comply is rightly contempt of court. The only problem is when a person legitimately forgets the key, because it is nearly impossible to determine if they have legitimately forgotten. Still, I’m not at all convinced that this ruling is a death knell for the Fifth Amendment.

The other story in the news came from Google, who announced that they are changing their privacy policy for accounts (this does not include search, Wallet, and Chrome). This story has caused no end of hand-wringing, but it seems to me like a severe overreaction. From what I can tell, interactions with third party sites hasn’t changed. The changes mostly make it easier for Google services to share data internally.

To me, that’s part of the appeal of using the variety of services Google offers. What’s the point of a single account if the services aren’t tightly integrated? The lack of an opt-out isn’t a compelling argument to me. Anyone who doesn’t like the privacy policy doesn’t have to use the service (though I’ll admit that if you just bought an Android phone, the cost for leaving (assuming an early termination fee with the carrier) can be prohibitive). There’s an adage that states if you’re not paying, you’re the product. I’m fine with my data being more available across my Google services and hope the promised cool things come to pass. If it ever becomes unacceptable to use Google services, I’ll take my ball and go home.

January 11, 2012

Purdue’s trimester plan

Filed under: Musings — Tags: , , — bcotton @ 9:57 pm

The following is my opinion only. It does not represent the opinion of Purdue University, nor does it reflect any insider information (because I am the last to find out insider information).

Earlier today, Purdue University officially announced a plan to move to a trimester schedule. The summer session would be optional, but encouraged, with the intent of increasing enrollment from 6,000 to 20,000. Making this change, the administration argues, would save students money (because the summer session is cheaper) and allow them to graduate earlier. It would also benefit the University by allowing facilities to be more utilized.

In preparation for an upcoming column, Journal & Courier opinions editor Dave Bangert asked what the area might be like with so many extra students over the summer. Obviously, the addition of an additional 14,000 students would have an impact. My friend Dave at the Silver Dipper might be the most pleased, as he depends on summer sales to support his business and his family year-round. Other local businesses and outdoor events would probably see additional traffic.

It wouldn’t necessarily be great for everyone, though. I can foresee rental properties having some difficulty. Some student-focused apartments offer 9 month leases. During other three months, they do maintenance tasks that are difficult to do when the unit is occupied. Another group that would be negatively impacted is the IT staff in academic departments on campus. Having been in such a role, I know that summers are a critical time to work on large projects and upgrades that aren’t easy to get done. And families who like to spend time on campus might find a busier campus less inviting.

All of this assumes that the plan works and summer enrollment increases. This is by no means a given. Many obstacles will have to be overcome. According to Purdue’s Data Digest, the average salary for all faculty appointments is $93,200. Many faculty are on 10-month appointments, so asking them to teach summer classes would require a considerable increase in payroll. Some faculty may prefer to participate in summer field work instead of teaching classes, and it’s not clear what the plan is if the demand is higher than the available faculty.

The other financial concern is that students won’t be able to fund the summer session. Most financial aid awards are designed around a two-semester-with-summers-off schedule. Although Purdue has set aside several million dollars in financial aid, other funding sources will need to follow suit. Students who rely on summer jobs to save up money for the rest of the year will have to decide between skipping the summer term or taking on additional loan debt.

I’m not convinced that classes that upperclassmen and graduate students need will be any more available with a summer session. In the upper-division meteorology classes, we generally had about 12 students enrolled. This meant that each course was offered once per year. A summer session wouldn’t help with that. Graduate classes can be even more rare, sometimes offered only once every other year. Presumably, undergraduates can opt for summer sessions their first two years and return to a two-semester calendar when they get into more major-specific coursework.

Another issue left unaddressed, at least publicly, is the summer convention schedule. Purdue regularly hosts the state FFA convention, as well as other conferences and conventions. Hosting these events requires meeting space and space in residence halls. Will the campus still be able to support such events with extra students, and will event organizers continue to find Purdue an attractive option?

In the end, it doesn’t particularly matter what my cynical opinion is. Dr. Cordova has announced that the plan will begin this summer, with the intention of building to the 20,000 student goal over several years. I hope the plan works out for the benefit of the University’s students and budget, but I’m not yet convinced that it will.

January 4, 2012

CNET considered harmful

Filed under: Linux,mac,Musings,The Internet — Tags: , , , — bcotton @ 11:05 pm

In my younger days, I made great use of CNET’s download.com website. It was an excellent tool for finding legal software. Apparently, it has also become an excellent tool for finding malware. An article posted to insecure.org describes how CNET has begun wrapping packages with an installer that bundles unwanted, potentially malicious software with the desired package.

This is terrible, and not just for the obvious reasons. It’s bad for the free software community because it makes us look untrustworthy. There’s a perception among some people (especially in the business world) that software can only be free if it’s no good. I suppose that’s one reason some in the community use “libre” to emphasize the free-as-in-freedom aspect. (Of course, not all free-as-in-beer software is free-as-in-freedom. That’s another reason the distinction can be important.)

When this conveniently-bundled malware causes problems for users, it’s not CNET who gets the blame. Users will unfairly blame the package developer, even though the developer had nothing to do with it. For well-established and well-respected packages like nmap, this reputation damage may not be that important. For a new project just getting started — or for the idea of free software in general — this can be devastating.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress