Pew pew pew

Yeah. I think it’s moderately likely that I’ll try to produce a little command-line tool that can do it effectively for deeply nested directories, with some attempt at making it cross platform. To me it’s kind of weird that there’s no stock solution existing to this problem. I get that it’s actually a deceptively difficult problem to solve for a couple of different reasons, but that’s no reason to pass the difficulty on to the programmer instead of just presenting a clean and nice interface.

Update: I looked around for something already-existing, and found watchman and fswatch… IDK, maybe I’ll try to talk one of them into letting me write an fanotify backend for those tools instead. It seems like it’s purely just a Linux issue, and everything is simple on BSD/Mac/Windows, so maybe I’m just lucky.

I think inotify’s limit is per system… and even if it wasn’t, why would I want to take on the artificial challenge of keeping up with making sure all the watchers are set on the right directories as things change, instead of just recursively monitoring the whole directory? The whole point of asking the question was “hey can something do this for me” as opposed to “hey I’d like the opportunity to code up for myself a solution to this problem.” 🙂

Just looking briefly it looks like it uses inotify (which definitely won’t work; I don’t have a super heavy write load but I have a total of 124,000 subdirectories to monitor) or can fall back to polling (which I could do myself without having to involve a library).

Why this app is constructed to store its stuff in 124,000 subdirectories is a separate issue but one that I can’t immediately snap my fingers and make go away, unfortunately.

Yeah, that’s universally my expectation when dealing with these systems. I was already queuing up my complaining-fingers when I pasted the error message to it, expecting it to refer me to some unrelated and useless documentation and make it a little more difficult for me to talk with a human (who might, 50/50, know how to solve the problem). I was not in any capacity expecting it to ask relevant questions and use them to identify the problem, tailor the link it was sending me according to what I needed to download, and then give me the link and tell me how to use it. Astounding.

Not a map, but things I’ve seen on the roads in Boston:

• Left turn only from left lane, straight or left from 2nd lane, straight or left from 3rd lane
• Green light and perpendicular traffic coming to me on the cross street, also going, because they also have a green light
• Two lanes, surprise! Lane markers go away it’s one lane, not defined who yields, you guys can work it out

Mozilla/5.0 (Android 10; Mobile; rv:121.0) Gecko/121.0 Firefox/121.0.

I just did a bunch of testing. The issue is that final version number, “Firefox/121.0”. Google returns very different versions of the page based on what browser you claim to be, and if you’re on mobile Firefox, it gives you different mobile versions depending on your version:

% wget -O - -nv -U 'Mozilla/5.0 (Android 10; Mobile; rv:62.0) Gecko/121.0 Firefox/41.0' https://www.google.com/ | wc -c
2024-01-08 15:54:29 URL:https://www.google.com/ [1985] -> "-" [1]
    1985
% wget -O - -nv -U 'Mozilla/5.0 (Android 10; Mobile; rv:62.0) Gecko/121.0 Firefox/62.0' https://www.google.com/ | wc -c
2024-01-08 15:54:36 URL:https://www.google.com/ [211455] -> "-" [1]
  211455
% wget -O - -nv -U 'Mozilla/5.0 (Android 10; Mobile; rv:62.0) Gecko/121.0 Firefox/80.0' https://www.google.com/ | wc -c
2024-01-08 15:52:24 URL:https://www.google.com/ [15] -> "-" [1]
      15
% wget -O - -nv -U 'Mozilla/5.0 (Android 10; Mobile; rv:62.0) Gecko/121.0 Firefox/121.0' https://www.google.com/ | wc -c
2024-01-08 15:52:04 URL:https://www.google.com/ [15] -> "-" [1]
      15

If you’re an early version of Firefox, it gives you a simple page. If you’re a later version of Firefox, it gives you a lot more complete version of the page. If you’re claiming to be a specific version of mobile Firefox, but the version you’re claiming (edit: oopsie doesn’t exist or even really make sense didn’t exist when they set this logic up or something), it gets confused and gives you nothing. You could argue that it should default to some sensible mobile version in this case, and they should definitely fix it, but it seems to me like it’s clearly not malicious.

Edit: Wait, I am wrong. I didn’t realize Firefox’s version numbers went up so high. It looks like the cutoff for where the blank pages start coming is at version 65, which is like 2012 era, so not real old at all. I still maintain that it’s probably accidental but it looks like it affects basically all modern mobile Firefoxes, yes.

What’s the user-agent? I’m curious now.

Is this still true? I just tested and it works for me on LibreWolf, both for google.com and google.com.br.

Honestly, Google doing this as a deliberate anti-Firefox measure seems so wildly stupid and counterproductive on their part that I’d assume it was some failure (serving a slightly different version of the page to Chrome as for other browsers, and the non-Chrome side breaks for some reason) before thinking it was malicious.

Depending on the nature of the changes, it might be more advantageous to tell them that it’s easier (i.e. cheaper) to contribute changes upstream, rather than maintaining them separately forever. Also, the good will and reputation boost involved can be significant.

Don’t say it if it isn’t true or anything, but in a lot of cases it’s true.

Previously, they made a rotary mount for parts they were working on so that they could precisely machine rounded corners at specific spots by spinning it in-place.

In this video, they made two little jigs for the rotary mount that can be easily slid around in both X and Y dimensions, to position parts on the mount, and that will automatically keep themselves at right angles so everything on the machined part will stay squared-off.

I think mostly they prefer for people to just fix their delivery to comply with the license, as opposed to causing antagonism towards the community by going straight to a lawsuit. But yes, there are definitely teeth to it if some company for whatever reason doesn’t want to fix their infringement.

Yeah, 100%. At this point the resources invested in MacOS / iOS have probably exceeded even the decades of work they were able to leverage by starting with FreeBSD / NeXT / Mach / whatever else.

(Edit: Actually, not 100% true. Macs are still very BSD-like under the hood; I actually really like development on Macs because I can basically treat them as BSD systems with unusual package management and a fancy GUI. For that reason they’re far preferable for me over Windows or pre-OSX Macs. But yes, your point is well taken that iOS development at this point has far eclipsed anything they started out from in terms of LOC and time spent.)

There’s a list of open source Android distributions. Although not very good, they are viable.

Yeah, I get that. This is why I’m not fully in agreement with Perens that this is an urgent problem.

How are phones free-software-hostile?

Because the whole idea of the GPL was to usher in a future that was like the environment RMS grew up in, where you always had the source code to all your stuff and you could examine or modify or build on it. Linux machines are in actual practice that way, which is super cool. Android phones are basically not, from the viewpoint of almost any mortal human. I think the argument is that the efforts that the manufacturers make to close off modifications to the phones, and then put software on them that’s sometimes hostile to the best interests of the phone owner, means they shouldn’t be able to use all this GPL-licensed software for free in order to build the phones they’re selling.

This to me is a good question. The lack of something concrete that sounds like “yes, that would definitely work” is something that makes me have reservations about this whole thesis… but that said I think it has some merit.

Mysql and Qt already have a pretty solid model, where there’s a GPL-enabled alternative that the community can use, or you can pay a fee to use the commercial version. You could scale that up to something where if you want to pay a certain fee, you can use lots of currently-GPL software (maybe any that’s been assigned to the FSF or something with the FSF shepherding the whole thing). Then, we can stop the sort of benign neglect of companies that are sloppy with their licensing of uboot or Busybox, and just tell them to start paying the fee if they don’t feel like dotting all their "i"s as far as licensing, and then use the fees to fund development of open source software that’s needed but doesn’t have a lot of motivated developers working on it.

I’m not as convinced that it’s necessary as Perens is. Like I think he overblows by quite a lot the impact of RHEL skirting their licensing, because in his mind RHEL is such a big part of the computing world when in reality it’s not. But it sounds like he’s describing real problems and the solutions make some version of good sense to me.

Violating the (spirit of) the license (without violating the letter, because of loopholes in the license) is exactly what Perens is talking about.

He’s not “complaining he isn’t getting paid.” I think it’s pretty rare that the people working on open source software are actually hurting for money or anything. He’s complaining that the actual practice of how the software is being used, RHEL and Android on phones and etc, isn’t doing well at reflecting the vision of the computing world the GPL was supposed to create. Then, as one possible solution, he’s proposing to kill two birds with one stone with a new license where the companies that are skirting the license right now can have to fund the development of particular types of open source software that need to get done anyway but is lacking right now (because of lack of profit motive).

You might or might not agree with his thesis; as much as I think it’s interesting and insightful I have some reservations about it. I just thought you were misunderstanding his whole argument as being in terms of money, that’s all.

Hm, interesting stuff. Yeah, maybe it’s more common than I was aware of – that’s still a little weird to me, because there are entities like FSF that are so happy to go to bat for people legally if they do want to make it a legal issue.

Maybe it’s made a little more complex because a lot of authors don’t want to “punish” the company involved so much as they just want people to comply with the terms of the license, and a lot of companies aren’t violating the license out of maliciousness but just from lack of knowledge or it just being more difficult than it sounds to keep your ducks in a row with source availability.

FWIW, I know Android phones generally have something buried in the settings where it explains what the licensing is for the code on the phone and with a theoretical offer for the source if you want it. That seems like what the Youtube talk is about; just creating the technical tools so that people can be in compliance without it being a pain in the butt that costs your engineers time and costs you money to do which companies are going to be tempted to avoid. But yeah, maybe people are getting sloppy about it in a way I wasn’t aware of; that’s sad to me if so.

The entire linked article is talking about “open source” in terms of the GPL specifically.

Busybox

On what is your doubt based? Like what devices do you have that you think are violators? Like I say I imagine that careless violations aren’t, like, un-heard of, but correcting them once things are explained is almost always the response. I mean, correcting the violation is usually free and easy. I’m not real familiar with the SFC, but I know they’re actively suing Visio right now, and I know the FSF is happy to bring cases to trial if it comes to that (they kind of like doing it it seems like).

Link to the Best Buy case