It has been quite a while since I last wrote an article and published it here.
It's not like I got tired of blogging. The reason why there hasn't been an update for such a long time is that I was doing my final exams in the past two months.
After passing my exams on Friday I should have time to write some articles again, so watch out for new articles here.
2008-06-23
2008-04-06
Why are hardware manufacturers keeping specs to themselves?
This is one question I have been interested in ever since I started using GNU/Linux.
Just think about it for a moment. About 20 years ago you got specifications for pretty much every piece of hardware you bought. You were given exact instructions on how to use the hardware you just bought, not only how to install it. Things have changed since then.
If you buy any piece of hardware today you actually have to expect not to get any documentation on how to "talk" to your new toy. You are only given a CD (sometimes even only a link to a homepage) containing drivers for a few specific operating systems, usually only Microsoft Windows.
Now I am no driver hacker and so I probably wouldn't be able to implement a driver for anything on my own anyways, but the Free Software community would largely benefit from hardware documentation, as there are a lot of capable driver hackers out there.
This is not a problem that only affects the Free Software community though. There are a lot of pieces of hardware which do not work on recent proprietary operating systems anymore due to lack of support by its manufacturers.
At least this problem would not exist for Free Software operating systems, such as GNU/Linux, if hardware makers would publish documentation of their hardware. The people still using devices which are well beyond their end-of-life could implement drivers on their own, not being dependent on anyone.
What I am really wondering about in this case is why hardware companies are unable to coin standards for accessing devices of the same class. It works perfectly well for USB (take USB mass storage devices as an example) and I do not understand why there can't be standardized interfaces to other hardware, such as network adapters, as well. On a very-low level these standardized interfaces do work. Just think of PCI, PCI Express or AGP.
Actually, if you think about this for a few more seconds you should realize one thing: Having standardized interfaces for devices of the same class would cut a lot of costs for hardware makers. Why? Oh well, if they design a brand new networking chip and still implement the given standard there would be no need of writing a new driver. Wait, there would be no need for per-device drivers at all. Implementing a common driver that accesses the standardized interface would be enough, for a whole range of devices.
So what am I asking of hardware makers? I would love to see companies creating devices of the same class to get together, create standardized interfaces, publish them and implement them in their new devices.
I know, this is not likely to happen anytime soon, so a more realistic approach is asking for Free Software drivers and/or documentation.
Personally I have stopped buying hardware which "works" with GNU/Linux, I have come to the point where I try only to buy hardware which either comes with Free Software drivers from the manufacturer or documentation which allows implementation of Free Software drivers.
This is probably the best way of showing these companies what you demand: Freedom.
Just think about it for a moment. About 20 years ago you got specifications for pretty much every piece of hardware you bought. You were given exact instructions on how to use the hardware you just bought, not only how to install it. Things have changed since then.
If you buy any piece of hardware today you actually have to expect not to get any documentation on how to "talk" to your new toy. You are only given a CD (sometimes even only a link to a homepage) containing drivers for a few specific operating systems, usually only Microsoft Windows.
Now I am no driver hacker and so I probably wouldn't be able to implement a driver for anything on my own anyways, but the Free Software community would largely benefit from hardware documentation, as there are a lot of capable driver hackers out there.
This is not a problem that only affects the Free Software community though. There are a lot of pieces of hardware which do not work on recent proprietary operating systems anymore due to lack of support by its manufacturers.
At least this problem would not exist for Free Software operating systems, such as GNU/Linux, if hardware makers would publish documentation of their hardware. The people still using devices which are well beyond their end-of-life could implement drivers on their own, not being dependent on anyone.
What I am really wondering about in this case is why hardware companies are unable to coin standards for accessing devices of the same class. It works perfectly well for USB (take USB mass storage devices as an example) and I do not understand why there can't be standardized interfaces to other hardware, such as network adapters, as well. On a very-low level these standardized interfaces do work. Just think of PCI, PCI Express or AGP.
Actually, if you think about this for a few more seconds you should realize one thing: Having standardized interfaces for devices of the same class would cut a lot of costs for hardware makers. Why? Oh well, if they design a brand new networking chip and still implement the given standard there would be no need of writing a new driver. Wait, there would be no need for per-device drivers at all. Implementing a common driver that accesses the standardized interface would be enough, for a whole range of devices.
So what am I asking of hardware makers? I would love to see companies creating devices of the same class to get together, create standardized interfaces, publish them and implement them in their new devices.
I know, this is not likely to happen anytime soon, so a more realistic approach is asking for Free Software drivers and/or documentation.
Personally I have stopped buying hardware which "works" with GNU/Linux, I have come to the point where I try only to buy hardware which either comes with Free Software drivers from the manufacturer or documentation which allows implementation of Free Software drivers.
This is probably the best way of showing these companies what you demand: Freedom.
2008-03-28
Free Software Supporter
I was quite stunned when I noticed that the Free Software Foundation (FSF) has recently started a new monthly-published newsletter, called the Free Software Supporter.
The reason I was amazed is not the fact that the FSF is now publishing such a newsletter, but rather the fact that I did not hear about that yet. Basically, the Supporter is about informating the Free Software enthusiasts about recent happenings and the work of the FSF, the GNU project and the global Free Software community.
It seems as if I am not the only person that is excited about the supporter, as Joshua Gay, who apparently is writing the Supporter, also seems to like it, as he writes in a blog post:
You can sign up to receive the Supporter via email on a monthly basis at http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-fsf and you can read the first issue online at http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-fsf/2008-03/msg00000.html.
Also, if the Supporter looks like an interesting read to you, you may as well enjoy the monthly newsletter the FSF Europe publishes. The FSFE Newsletter can either be read online or you can sign up for the FSF Europe press-release mailing list.
Personally I believe both newsletters are worth reading and give you a great overview of what has happened in the past month, what is going to happen and the work done by the FSF and FSF Europe.
The reason I was amazed is not the fact that the FSF is now publishing such a newsletter, but rather the fact that I did not hear about that yet. Basically, the Supporter is about informating the Free Software enthusiasts about recent happenings and the work of the FSF, the GNU project and the global Free Software community.
It seems as if I am not the only person that is excited about the supporter, as Joshua Gay, who apparently is writing the Supporter, also seems to like it, as he writes in a blog post:
I hope that you enjoy the Supporter. I am looking forward to reflecting each month upon the work of the FSF, the GNU project, and the global free software community. I only hope that the number of highlights I add each month will continue to grow as quickly as the community is growing. In either case, we hope to keep it short and we hope to keep you informed.
You can sign up to receive the Supporter via email on a monthly basis at http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-fsf and you can read the first issue online at http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-fsf/2008-03/msg00000.html.
Also, if the Supporter looks like an interesting read to you, you may as well enjoy the monthly newsletter the FSF Europe publishes. The FSFE Newsletter can either be read online or you can sign up for the FSF Europe press-release mailing list.
Personally I believe both newsletters are worth reading and give you a great overview of what has happened in the past month, what is going to happen and the work done by the FSF and FSF Europe.
2008-03-27
Is trying to fix (E)SMTP really worth it? [part 1]
[digg=http://digg.com/security/Is_trying_to_fix_E_SMTP_really_worth_it_part_1]
This one question has been in my mind for quite some time already. I mean, everyone uses SMTP (knowingly or not) when sending out emails and everyone sending emails also knows what SPAM is and receives SPAM messages.
However, few know how old SMTP actually is, and that, even though it serves everyone well, it has been designed in a time when everyone was thinking of Spam as canned meat. Back in 1982 SMTP was a great achievement and a lot of kudos should go to its creators, but now, in 2008, SMTP has become more of a liability than a great tool.
Originally, I wanted to write a single article covering all shortcomings of SMTP and possible solutions to these problems, but while writing the article a lot of text came up, so this is the first of two articles I am going to write on this topic. The first part is about the problems with SMTP and how fix-ups for SMTP are, even though they do work to some extent, a proper solutions to today's issues.
Due to the way SMTP was designed and the way the Internet was back then it is prone to various things, like SPAM messages, sender spoofing, data manipulation and so forth. A few attempts have been made at fixing some of the shortcomings of SMTP, like ESMTPA (SMTP-AUTH) or SPF, Callback Verification, and DKIM, but none of them has really fixed all problems that exist and all of these modifications are in my opinion mere workarounds. Let us have a look at why both SPF and DKIM fail to fix the all problems SMTP has right now.
This one question has been in my mind for quite some time already. I mean, everyone uses SMTP (knowingly or not) when sending out emails and everyone sending emails also knows what SPAM is and receives SPAM messages.
However, few know how old SMTP actually is, and that, even though it serves everyone well, it has been designed in a time when everyone was thinking of Spam as canned meat. Back in 1982 SMTP was a great achievement and a lot of kudos should go to its creators, but now, in 2008, SMTP has become more of a liability than a great tool.
Originally, I wanted to write a single article covering all shortcomings of SMTP and possible solutions to these problems, but while writing the article a lot of text came up, so this is the first of two articles I am going to write on this topic. The first part is about the problems with SMTP and how fix-ups for SMTP are, even though they do work to some extent, a proper solutions to today's issues.
Due to the way SMTP was designed and the way the Internet was back then it is prone to various things, like SPAM messages, sender spoofing, data manipulation and so forth. A few attempts have been made at fixing some of the shortcomings of SMTP, like ESMTPA (SMTP-AUTH) or SPF, Callback Verification, and DKIM, but none of them has really fixed all problems that exist and all of these modifications are in my opinion mere workarounds. Let us have a look at why both SPF and DKIM fail to fix the all problems SMTP has right now.
How to reject mails containing OOXML attachments using Exim4
I finally did it. I modified my Exim's configuration to reject any mail with an OOXML attachment (ie. docx, pptx, xlsx).
There are two main reasons for this step. First of all I am not able to open these files and I believe I will not be able to do so and get them properly rendered anytime soon. Secondly, people using the new Microsoft Office suite seem to be ignorant enough to think everyone is able to view those files, which is not the case.
I am trying to make one point here:
People sending emails to other people should always send files in internationally standardized formats (open formats), such as ODF or PDF, so that everyone is able to open them and use the attachments. Also, I am trying to make people sending out emails in those formats aware of the fact that not everyone can open them, not everyone wants to invest a lot of money in new applications and that some people generally prefer Free Software and that there is no way of using those files using Free Software right now.
Enough for the introduction, I wanted to explain how to achieve this behavior using Exim4:
Putting this snippet in the acl_check_content section of your exim4.conf should do the trick.
Oh, and while I am at it, you can easily use this snippet to drop mails with other attachments, based on the file extension.
For example, in order to reject all mails containing WMV files just use demime = wmv.
Note that this snippets checks for a specified file extension instead of a MIME type. People still can get mails through in those formats if they modify the file extension, so do not use this method as a security measure.
There are two main reasons for this step. First of all I am not able to open these files and I believe I will not be able to do so and get them properly rendered anytime soon. Secondly, people using the new Microsoft Office suite seem to be ignorant enough to think everyone is able to view those files, which is not the case.
I am trying to make one point here:
People sending emails to other people should always send files in internationally standardized formats (open formats), such as ODF or PDF, so that everyone is able to open them and use the attachments. Also, I am trying to make people sending out emails in those formats aware of the fact that not everyone can open them, not everyone wants to invest a lot of money in new applications and that some people generally prefer Free Software and that there is no way of using those files using Free Software right now.
Enough for the introduction, I wanted to explain how to achieve this behavior using Exim4:
deny message = Message contains attachment of unwanted type ($found_extension)
demime = docx:pptx:xlsx
Putting this snippet in the acl_check_content section of your exim4.conf should do the trick.
Oh, and while I am at it, you can easily use this snippet to drop mails with other attachments, based on the file extension.
For example, in order to reject all mails containing WMV files just use demime = wmv.
Note that this snippets checks for a specified file extension instead of a MIME type. People still can get mails through in those formats if they modify the file extension, so do not use this method as a security measure.
2008-03-26
SFLC now also providing services to for-profit clients
The Software Freedom Law Center, known for providing pro bono legal assistance to Free Software projects, announced the formation of Moglen Ravicher LLC, a law firm also providing services to for-profit clients.
This not only means that companies are now able to get legal assistance on Free Software matters from the SFLC, but also that the center found a way of helping its own funding.
It also seems as if the first for-profit client is OpenNMS:
For more information see the homepage of the SFLC and the news entry announcing this step.
"We are pleased to extend the services of the Software Freedom Law Center to companies that support software freedom," said Eben Moglen, founding director of SFLC.
Moglen Ravicher LLC is fully owned by the Software Freedom Law Center, and all profits will go to support SFLC's operations. Clients of Moglen Ravicher LLC will receive legal counsel from the same attorneys that staff the Software Freedom Law Center.
This not only means that companies are now able to get legal assistance on Free Software matters from the SFLC, but also that the center found a way of helping its own funding.
It also seems as if the first for-profit client is OpenNMS:
An initial client of Moglen Ravicher LLC is OpenNMS, an open source enterprise grade network management platform. OpenNMS has retained the firm for representation regarding violations of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
For more information see the homepage of the SFLC and the news entry announcing this step.
Happy Document Freedom Day!
Just in case you do not know yet: today is Document Freedom Day.
What does this mean for mean personally? Less than one would expect. I have been advocating the use of Open Document formats (such as ODF) for the past two years already, and try to do so whenever possible.
People react very differntly when I raise this issue. Some appreciate being informed that there are Open Document formats, which guarantee interoperability with everyone, but others tend to tell me "everyone uses [Microsoft] Office, isn't that format a standard?". The answer is always the same: NO.
Neither the old proprietary Microsoft Office format, nor the new format, OOXML are standards in my opinion and here is why:
The old format is not documented at all, and no international standards body, such as the ISO, have ever made this format a standard.
The new format, OOXML, which is in the news quite often lately, is being pushed to be made an ISO standard. People often think that, as documentation (which is said to be of poor quality) is available, making this format an international standard would be a good thing.
I am afraid I have to say NO once again here. There are too many references to the old proprietary format, which is a huge no-go for something that should become an international standard.
Also, there already is an international standard for office documents, ODF. In my opinion there is no point in having two separate standards for the same thing and the chance of such a situation causing a lot of havoc is quite good.
So, personally I have to say that I quite often suggested people to switch to OpenOffice.Org lately, instead of buying Microsoft's latest Office suite. Document Freedom and the use of Free Software are not my main arguments lately, but rather that people switching to OpenOffice.Org now do not have to learn how to use a new user-interface. People are lazy, and this argument works perfectly.
And there is yet another point for using Open Standards in IT:
Think of the Internet and where it would be without Open Standards (and also Free Software). Think of how everything on the Internet would work together. Think of one browser supporting only its own network protocol (which of course would be proprietary) and other browsers only supporting theirs. The Internet would not be what it is today without Open Standards and guaranteed interoperability.
More information about the Document Freedom day can be found in the last news entry over at documentfreedom.org.
Today is Document Freedom Day: Roughly 200 teams from more than 60 countries worldwide are organising local activities to raise awareness for Document Freedom and Open Standards.
What does this mean for mean personally? Less than one would expect. I have been advocating the use of Open Document formats (such as ODF) for the past two years already, and try to do so whenever possible.
People react very differntly when I raise this issue. Some appreciate being informed that there are Open Document formats, which guarantee interoperability with everyone, but others tend to tell me "everyone uses [Microsoft] Office, isn't that format a standard?". The answer is always the same: NO.
Neither the old proprietary Microsoft Office format, nor the new format, OOXML are standards in my opinion and here is why:
The old format is not documented at all, and no international standards body, such as the ISO, have ever made this format a standard.
The new format, OOXML, which is in the news quite often lately, is being pushed to be made an ISO standard. People often think that, as documentation (which is said to be of poor quality) is available, making this format an international standard would be a good thing.
I am afraid I have to say NO once again here. There are too many references to the old proprietary format, which is a huge no-go for something that should become an international standard.
Also, there already is an international standard for office documents, ODF. In my opinion there is no point in having two separate standards for the same thing and the chance of such a situation causing a lot of havoc is quite good.
So, personally I have to say that I quite often suggested people to switch to OpenOffice.Org lately, instead of buying Microsoft's latest Office suite. Document Freedom and the use of Free Software are not my main arguments lately, but rather that people switching to OpenOffice.Org now do not have to learn how to use a new user-interface. People are lazy, and this argument works perfectly.
And there is yet another point for using Open Standards in IT:
Think of the Internet and where it would be without Open Standards (and also Free Software). Think of how everything on the Internet would work together. Think of one browser supporting only its own network protocol (which of course would be proprietary) and other browsers only supporting theirs. The Internet would not be what it is today without Open Standards and guaranteed interoperability.
More information about the Document Freedom day can be found in the last news entry over at documentfreedom.org.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)