For fsck's sake add swap...

If you're like most people undertaking an attempt to repair a really large volume (in this case 36TB), you run  fsck (or specifically e2fsck) without a second thought. Some days later (oh yes) you realise it's eating all of the RAM and making big inroads into swap. A quick check via your favourite search engine gets you the information that:

(i) it's going to eat more and when it runs out of RAM and swap fsck will crash and you'll have to start over, and;

(ii) you should have had more swap or used a scratch disk by creating an e2fsck conf file and configuring one as necessary.

Oh for the gift of foresight...

But an  option I ran into elsewhere is to simply add more swap on the fly. As this worked neatly and without any fuss, I thought I'd document it here for others with a similar issue.

As root or using sudo, do:

> fallocate -l 8g /mnt/fsck.swap

> mkswap /mnt/fsck.swap

> swapon /mnt/fsck.swap

where what you call it is up to you, where you put it is up to you (ideally on a volume not doing much else) and the size is dictated by the available space and set with the "-l 8g" line i.e. I made an 8GB swap file in the above example.

Now I've doubled swap there's a chance this fsck could finish. Sometime in the not too distant future :)

Adding real value through ICT

A lot has been written in recent years regarding the importance of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) staff understanding the business in which they work and therefore being able to add real value to the business through their selection and application of technology. Organisations the world around have taken heed of this, particularly after noting the positive results generated for the trailblazers, and have worked to get their ICT staff aligned with the organisation instead of treating them as outsiders. Many specialist sectors tend to be a little behind in these trends, and it seems to me that this is the case in the charitable sector, at least in the UK (exceptions noted!).

So how can ICT staff in charities can add real value? It can take some time for the best of us to identify technologies that will help in a given sector, let alone an individual organisation, but with charities there is a neat starting point - almost all charities depend on specific aspects of culture: the willingness of people to give, to volunteer; to spend some of their own time doing things for the benefit of others. Regardless of what else a charity does, educate, feed, heal, house, clothe, etc., it is essential to their success that the general populace has the desire and interest in giving freely, whether of time, skills, cash or a mix of the three. Anything that promotes this behaviour in our culture encourages charity and therefore helps charities to thrive.

This is the same positive aspect of cultures and individuals that allows open source software to thrive; people give of their time, their skills and/or their cash for the benefit of the greater good. So there is one simple thing that ICT staff in charities can do to add real charitable value; switch their charities to using open source.

Switch the charity to open source not because a given technical solution available at that instant of assessment and acquisition is "the best". Nor because the use of open source allows you to ensure the chosen solution becomes the best (once in use and the success criteria far better understood). Nor because the same technical people interested in open source are more likely to be interested in working in the charitable sector even if that means lower pay. Not even for the other long term cost savings offered by open source. Think, for a moment, about the tendency of charities to be helping the under-privileged in the global society and how an open source solution, having no cost of purchase, is likely to permit adoption by those very same under-privileged people, and how the charity's use of it tends to help to improve the software for all other users; let that influence the decision.

But in the final analysis, switch to open source because it promotes a charitable outlook in the greater society. The ultimate way to add value to your charity through technology. Technically not necessarily simple, but philosophically so, and drawing on ancient philosophies at that. Cultivate the desire to give charity; giving begats giving; do unto others as you would be done by.

To promote your charity, act charitably in your choice of ICT.


(A version of this posting appeared on Oxford Archaeology's blog server in 2007)

Copyright, content industries and "that's not fair"

In the sense of "and I'm going to tell my mummy government". Robert Heinlein penned the following quotation, as part of his first ever published story:

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."

Robert A Heinlein, Life-Line, 1939

The copyright reform battle is enshrined in this thinking. On the one side we have people reasonably pointing out that the move to digital from analogue completely changes how content can and is being reproduced, reducing some formerly expensive processes to zero cost; on the other we have the rights holders shouting "no fair" and demanding the law is made tighter, rights extended longer, and that everyone else must be made to expend their resources and all unreasonable efforts to protect their lucrative business model.

But their business model, historically lucrative and rather young, is now outdated. Setting a book for a PDF can be carried out using cost-free software in hours and reproduction is free; people are creating popular music in their bedrooms and distributing it at no cost, and with the rise of Aframe (and presumably soon a Samwers clone ;) ) film production costs are following the huge drop in distribution and reproduction that digital and the Internet had already brought.

Installing Linux on Dell E5420

As is customary, to help others following along the path, here's some instructions for installing Linux (Kubuntu 11.04 but I'd guess any modern distro would be a similar experience) on a 2011 Dell E5420. In case the particular specification has an impact on the steps needed I've appended it to the bottom of this post.

These steps assume you have a prepared bootable install medium. I use a USB key, but CD/DVD would be similar.

Step 1 (optional): Ensure laptop is connected to mains and network (best to use wired).

Step 2: Press F12 during BIOS spash screen to reach boot menu, and select your boot media.

Step 3: When install option comes up, select it. Accept all defaults and complete user information as requested/desired.

Step 4: When instructed, reboot laptop. If using USB and an SSD this is in less than 5 minutes.

Step 5: Everything works. Enjoy :)

Sadly this traditional post is basically pointless, because it was that easy. All but one of my nieces could have done it (the youngest is only a month old, give her a chance...). In less time than it takes to install a Windows service pack you can take a blank laptop and transform it into complete working environment with all the core applications (office suite, etc.) already installed. No technical expertise required.

PS Rather nice, solidly built, nice to use laptop, in case you're interested. 3 mouse buttons on the Trackstick too. Battery lasted 7 hours out of the box, including all the install work :)

Spec (yes, no Microsoft Windows was supplied nor paid for):

Latitude E5420
Processor : One Intel Core i3-2310M (2.10GHz, 3MB cache, Dual Core)
Display : 14.0in UltraSharp HD+ (1600X900) AntiGlare LED-backlit with Premium Panel Guarantee
Palmrest : Dual Point Touchpad and Trackstick
Camera : Integrated Full HD Camera with Microphone
Memory : 2GB (1x2GB) 1333MHz DDR3 Dual Channel
Hard Drive : 128GB Mobility Solid State Drive
Optical Drive : DVD +/-RW Drive
Battery : Primary 9-cell 87W/HR, 3 Year Warranty
Wireless : Dell 375 Bluetooth Card
Wireless Card : EMEA Intel Centrino Advanced-N 6205 (802.11 a/b/g/n) Half Mini Card
Keyboard : Internal UK/Irish Qwerty Backlit Dual Pointing Keyboard (antimicrobial)
OS Media : Not Included

The public good of software

Or public goods, to be more precise. Every economics student can promptly skip three paragraphs.

The subject of economics likes to classify and simplify things; some of these classifications and simplifications are useful, some not. Several in classical economics are downright dangerous, but I digress. One classification that more or less all economists would agree on is the concept of the public good. A public good is one that is collectively paid for because it makes no sense to pay for it any other way; the majority of services provided by the public sector are, or should be, public goods per se.

A classical example of a public good is streetlights. Streetlights have been around since 800AD or so; the first streetlights as we recognise them today were gas powered and switched on in Pall Mall in 1807; the first streets to be lit by electric light were in 1881 (Cleveland, Ohio and Newcastle-upon-Tyne appear to share this honour). All these streetlights share one distinctive feature; it is effectively impossible to have streetlights and charge individually for benefiting from them.

Early streetlights were either installed for public benefit or as a marketing ploy; modern day streetlights are more or less universally funded from local taxation. No one has ever managed to charge directly the user of the streetlight; creating and managing a use-based charging model would be several orders of magnitude more expensive than the provision of the light itself. Light being tricky stuff would provide much of the complication. How much light is enough before you get charged? So how close to the light can you get for free? Do you get charged different amounts depending on the how dark it would be if the light was turned off? How foggy it is? Do people who get the light spilling into their houses get charged? Anyhow, it's far too complex a question and to my knowledge it has never even been attempted. Residents in the town/region pay, everyone who passes by at night benefits.

Recently I argued against open source software being a cartel market. I closed that post by pointing out that software could not actually be seen as a normal economic good; can software be best seen as a public good? Interesting question...

The formal definition of a public good is that it is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. A good is seen to be excludable if you can easily and cheaply prevent those who have not paid for the good from consuming it, while a rivalrous good is one where your consumption of it prevents another from having it.

So here I am with my computer, using LibreOffice to write this post. If software is a normal good then my using it should be preventing you using it. Which clearly it does not as even if you don't yet have it you could just follow the download link to get it, I could give you a copy of the one I'm using and, on a thin client setup, we could all be using the same installed copy, so software (all software) is non-rivalrous; one tick in the box. Interestingly the common example of a non-rivalrous good is broadcast media - yet software is utterly non-rivalrous while broadcast media has a number of restrictions (no simultaneous use of wavelengths, requirement of near line of sight to transmitter, limited range). An alternative definition of a non-rivalrous good is one that could be provided at a very low additional (marginal) cost for each additional customer. Software clearly satisfies this definition and then some as the marginal cost for each additional customer/user is effectively zero.

So is software excludable? Well, companies whose business model is the production of software for sale have historically gone to great lengths to prevent people from using software without paying for it; and yet even with significant public monies being spent in helping prevent this illicit use, people continue to make use of all sorts of software they are not supposed to, entirely free. Arguably even the reasonably effective methods that have been used to prevent software being used illicitly, like dongles, are so expensive relative to the cost of the copy of the software that they would automatically fail the excludability test.

So software is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. A pure public good by normal economic definition. Yet it is not how many people currently view it, and much software is sold at high prices to individuals as if it was a normal good. Actually much software is sold prices so high relative to the cost of the copy of the software that it's priced at what economics would view as monopoly prices.

Why isn't software provided as a public good? Why isn't it something we collectively provide? Surely this would be to the greatest benefit of all, economically speaking, and be far more in keeping with the nature of software. Oddly, it is not uncommon for companies who produce software for sale to spend more money on selling, marketing and protecting the sales of the software than they do on making the software better. Economically speaking this makes no sense - it is the attempt to create artificial exclusions that costs so much money, rather than improvements to the product.

So software could be, should be a public good. Come to think of it, wouldn't it be even better, something more than a public good, if software was not only provided collectively but in a way that made it easy for others to improve? Like if the underlying programming code was available and people could fix stuff and add new features and then make the resulting improved, added value version available to everyone else allowing the virtuous cycle to start again. Wouldn't that be a truly amazing thing? Ever more added value for all, the economics are just brilliant; just need a name for the approach and then surely this "available code" software will spread like wildfire...