One of the policies in the Pirate Party UK's general election manifesto this year was:
We will encourage the adoption of open source software in schools, so that children won't be reliant in the future on buying a particular software package from a particular company.
Here in the UK, I still get odd looks when I say I use Linux almost exclusively on my computers. A widely-held perception seems to be that Linux is an esoteric operating system that isn't capable of doing a lot of widely-needed tasks. Certainly many of my friends would never consider running it on their own computers (despite the fact they're almost certain to have at least box running Linux in their house — but I digress).
Open Source in schools is a particularly controversial concept. 'But how will school leavers be able to function in the Real World if they haven't been taught to use the "industry standard" software?' the detractors cry, referring of course to Microsoft Office.
The fact is, though, that Linux has been widely deployed in schools all around the world. The biggest deployment is in Brazil, where the Ministry of Education has installed Linux in labs used by 52 million schoolchildren nationwide — yes, that's fifty-two million — and it's been a great success. Not only does the 'Linux Educacional' distribution, installed in tens of thousands of school computer labs, fulfil the day-to-day needs of school ICT and computer science teaching, but has lead to a growing market for OEM Linux computers in Brazil. And no, their school leavers seem to have no difficulty whatsoever in adapting their IT skills for use in the 'real world' (whatever that is), as Brazil continues to have the strongest IT industry in South America.
Aaron Seigo mentioned this and other (huge!) educational Linux deployments in his keynote speech at this year's Akademy, the KDE developer conference. It seems to me that Linux — not to mention other great Open Source software such as OpenOffice.org, Firefox, Blender, Audacity and Inkscape — have already proven their suitability for use in schools.
Maybe it's time for British schools to step out of the muddy rut of using Microsoft everywhere 'because everybody uses Microsoft', and follow the lead of so many other countries in trying something new, exciting, and in the long run quite possibly both better and cheaper.
Labels: ppuk
Since Blogger are discontinuing FTP and SFTP publishing at the beginning of May, I've now migrated my blog to being hosted by a Blogger "custom domain", http://blog.peter-b.co.uk.
Fortunately, I've been able to use a .htaccess file to add a mod_alias Redirect directive that ensures that old links to http://peter-b.co.uk/blog/ will continue to work. So that makes it a lot less of a hassle!
What was a hassle was figuring out the CSS to disable the Blogger navbar, since it completely destroyed the harmony of my site design. It's hard to believe that it's almost seven years old! I should probably break out the text editor and update it at some point, but after this long I can hardly remember how to use CSS and HTML; I've got a lot of catching up to do.
A cake recipe that I've had some success with recently is this rather delicious banana and walnut cake. It's dead simple, and takes very little time to make. There's one in the oven right now!
Pre-heat oven to 180 °C. Lightly butter a 25x10 cm loaf tin. Cream butter and sugar together until smooth and pale.
Add eggs one at a time, beating well. Fold in mashed bananas, vanilla and walnuts. Sift in flour and salt and fold in.
Spoon mixture into loaf tin, and bake for one hour or until a knife pushed into centre of cake comes out dry. Cool in tin for at least 20 min before turning out.
My chocolate brownies have also been popular recently, this time with the University of Surrey Mountaineering Club!
When writing computer programs, I try to ensure that they are portable enough to run on as many different platforms as possible without modifying the source code. This becomes tricky when I'm writing in C and I want to provide a vaguely-modern-feeling user interface. Since about 2006, I've relied on GTK+, the basis of the GNOME desktop environment, as my GUI library of choice. A good example of a piece of GTK+-based software for which I'm a member of the development team is the gEDA project, a collection of tools for electronics design.
One of the attractions of GTK+ for me has always been its ability to be used on both X Window System-based operating systems (e.g. Linux and BSD) and on Microsoft Windows. Unfortunately, it seems that Windows support has now been discontinued.
Back in September, GTK+ 2.18 was released. Unfortunately, it contained a large regression which has caused some headaches for people working with GTK+ on the Windows platform (essentially, GTK+ applications would be completely unusable in some cases). Furthermore, a rewrite of some core GTK+ code inbetween 2.16 and 2.18 left the GTK+ on Windows infested with a host of other minor but annoying bugs.
Now, what normally happens when an Open Source program upon which literally thousands of applications and millions of users depend has a major stable release containing a large regression on one of the major supported platforms? Well, in most such cases, the software's developers figure out a workaround as quickly as possible and make sure that those affected know about it, and then make haste to track down the source of the bug, fix it, test the fix, and issue a point release or set of patches with which their users can obtain a working version.
Apparently not so in the case of GTK+. Four months later, GTK+ 2.18.x is still pretty much unusable on Windows, and the general consensus is to use 2.16.x. Dominic Lachowicz, a GTK+ developer, has is still warning people not to use 2.18.x on Windows:
Look before you leap. GTK 2.18 on Windows is very buggy.
The attitude of the maintainer of the Windows port, Tor Lillqvist, has been quite alarming. In comments on the GNOME bugtracker, he gave no impression of any intention of resolving the issues himself, saying:
You want ot use some new API present only in 2.18? Please then consider helping in actually debugging and fixing the problems in GTK+ 2.18 on Windows.
... perhaps you should just use the version of software as it was before the "introduction" of the bug? I mean, nobody promised you there would be any updates of Windows-specific functionality, or otherwise, in GTK+, right? So just use GTK+ as it was before "somebody broke it".
It's becoming distressingly clear that there is no-one in the current GTK+ development team with any particular commitment to keeping the Windows support in working order. Furthermore, it seems clear to me that the hostile and confrontational attitude of people like Tor will tend to drive away any new developers interested in taking the work on. It's already hard enough to get patches into GTK+ as it is -- even complete and tested patches tend to hang around in the GNOME bugtracker for weeks or months before being dealt with.
Going forward, I think that I'll need to find an alternative set of libraries that I can use for cross-platform GUI programming and get a well-integrated 'look and feel' with. The Qt toolkit has a good reputation for documentation and support, but doesn't seem to support applications written in C. Are there any other alternatives I've missed?
I recently wrote a blog posting for the Pirate Party UK website about my latest publicity initiative: Project Postcard!
The election is fast approaching, and the time has come to really press on with raising our profile. All our members need to be doing their part if we're going to make an impact on the UK political landscape. I personally have been aiming to do something meaningful & constructive for the party every day -- and I recommend to you all to make a similar commitment. Even little things can make a real difference.
One way you might be able to help is to get involved with my 'Project Postcard' initiative. I'm shortly going to be ordering a few thousand professionally-produced postcard-like flyers, printed with information on who we are and what we stand for, as well as details of how to find out more.
I've been following the progress of In Re Bilski before the US Supreme Court, because it's got the potential to set the rules for business method (and thus software) patents for the next few years.
Unfortunately, it seems that lawyers' view of what constitutes a "good" patent has hit a new and hilarious low. Take this extract from the oral arguments (thanks to Groklaw for pointing it out):
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But it would be different, it seems to me, than what you are -- let's assume you can't patent an alphabet. I assume that is true. And you can take an alphabet to make beautiful words, and -- and so forth. You -- you want to say that these -- these electronic signals can be used in a way just like the alphabet can be used. And many of the scientific briefs say that their process is different, that they are taking electronic signals and turning them into some other sort of signal. But that's not what you are doing.
MR. JAKES: That may be, but those signals could also be transmitted. On -- on your question about the alphabet you said look at the Morse claim 5, which was an alphabet to Morse Code. That's exactly what it was.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So you reject -- you reject the substitute. You think you can patent an alphabet because it is a process of forming words.
MR. JAKES: It could be, yes.
In what world does this seem like a sane and reasonable way for patentability rules to evolve?
I've now written to both the Green MEP in my region, Caroline Lucas, and my MP, Humfrey Malins.
My e-mail to Caroline Lucas was fairly straightforward to write. Firstly, she's an MEP, and thus European-level matters are more directly relevant to her interests. Additionally, the Commission have been ignoring direct calls, by MEPs, lead by the Green Party, for more transparency in ACTA, so I know that she already agrees that there's a problem.
Dear Dr. Lucas,
In December 2008, lead by the Green Party, the European Parliament adopted a resolution regarding ACTA which:
"... Calls on the Commission and the Member States to negotiate ACTA under conditions of the utmost transparency towards EU citizens, especially with regard to the definitions of the terms "counterfeiting" and "piracy" and the criminal sanction measures foreseen; takes the view that the social impact of the agreement as well as the impact on civil liberties must be assessed; supports the establishment of a task force to examine the implementation of the agreement, by promoting this subject in dialogue between the European Union and third countries and as part of cooperation measures with those countries..." [P6_TA(2008)0634]Furthermore, in March 2009, the Parliament and Council adopted a Regulation that required that:
"In accordance with Article 255(1) of the EC Treaty, the Commission should immediately make all documents related to the ongoing international negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) publicly available. [Am 109]" [P6_TA-PROV(2009)0114]Nevertheless, many months later, the ACTA text under discussion is still being discussed behind closed doors, without the opportunity for review or discussion by those whom it will affect if adopted. I would greatly appreciate an explanation as to why this is, and what the Parliament, the Green Party and you yourself are currently doing to address this.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Brett
Writing to Humfrey Malins was more challenging. Firstly, European Commission-level negotiations aren't something that the Commons has any real direct influence on. However, the fact that the Baroness of Uphallow is the European Commissioner for Trade provided a way to demonstrate the ACTA negotiations' direct relevance.
Dear Humfrey Malins,
The UK, as part of the European Commission, is currently in the process of negotiating the plurilateral Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.
This process has been concealed behind a veil of utmost secrecy, despite repeated demands by the European Parliament and Council for greater transparency (see: P6_TA(2008)0634 and P6_TA-PROV(2009)0114). Only a rough outline of the structure of the proposed treaty is available to the billions of people who will be affected by its provisions. I do not believe that, in the case of a trade treaty, such secrecy serves the public interest. The quality and fairness of the results of the process can only be improved by allowing the people in whose name the treaty is being negotiated to see and discuss the actual provisions being suggested.
I have already written to my MEPs, but the Commission has made it quite clear that they intend to continue to ignore the European Parliament's position on this issue. Catherine Ashton is the UK Commissioner and holder of the Commission's Trade portfolio, and as such is responsible for the Commission's role in the ACTA negotiations. (It is interesting to note that the Baroness of Upholland has no background in trade issues and has never been elected to public office.)
Would you be willing to ask the Prime Minister to direct Baroness Ashton to encourage the EU ACTA delegation to open the process to public scrutiny, please? It seems to me this would greatly serve the public interest.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Brett
Hopefully I'll get some useful and timely replies. We'll see!
Over the last two years, a number of countries and multi-national blocs have been negotiating a new treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The UK Intellectual Property Office, for example, claim that:
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) seeks to coordinate international cooperation on IPR enforcement practices, to tackle effectively counterfeit and pirated goods.
Whether or not you feel that the premises on which the proposed treaty is founded are benign (the Pirate Party UK, of which I am a member, opposes it in principle), the most disturbing thing about this treaty is the veil of total secrecy behind which all of the negotiations and details of the proposed treaty provisions have been concealed. (Recall that, in most countries, international treaties which have been ratified by the government have the force of law).
Indeed, the public was not even aware of what, exactly, the proposed agreement would cover until a discussion paper was leaked in May 2008.
On the EU side, the negotiations are being carried out by the European Commission, which has routinely denied or stalled all attempts to give transparency to the process. They have even ignored repeated demands from the European Parliament for drafts and documentation of the process. In December 2008, for example, the European Parliament adopted a resolution which:
Calls on the Commission and the Member States to negotiate ACTA under conditions of the utmost transparency towards EU citizens, especially with regard to the definitions of the terms "counterfeiting" and "piracy" and the criminal sanction measures foreseen; takes the view that the social impact of the agreement as well as the impact on civil liberties must be assessed; supports the establishment of a task force to examine the implementation of the agreement, by promoting this subject in dialogue between the European Union and third countries and as part of cooperation measures with those countries.
The Commission failed to comply. Several months later, in March 2009, the European Parliament and Council adopted new regulations on transparency in government, and as part of this they specifically singled out the ACTA negotiations as an area in which transparency was sorely needed.
In accordance with Article 255(1) of the EC Treaty, the Commission should immediately make all documents related to the ongoing international negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) publicly available.
Nevertheless, these documents are still not available. Although there are judicial procedures by which the Parliament can compel the Commission to act, these take a long time, long enough that the details of ACTA might not be made available until the negotiations are concluded and the treaty's provisions presented as a fait accompli.
It's therefore been recommended that citizens of EU countries pressure our individual governments to make the process more transparent. For example, I have recently filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act for details of the UK's part in the ACTA negotiations and, specifically, for draft documents, and I'll be writing to my MP later today to ask him whether he feels that such secrecy in negotiations of a trade treaty is really in the public interest.
Watch this space.
Update: I've made additional FOI requests of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Update 2: BIS say that I should contact UKIPO. How fortunate that I already have done so!
In late 2005, shortly after arriving at Girton College to begin my undergraduate course in Engineering, I met a young lady who would change my life forever. She was tall; she was slender; she was a stunning brunette; she was intelligent; she was witty. She was the most wonderful woman I had ever met.
She was also quite shy, which meant it took a long time -- months -- for me to win her trust. We chatted online most days of the Christmas vacation, and in the Lent term we drank late night cocoa together while commiserating about the length and difficulty of our examples papers. Just after Easter in our first year at Cambridge, we began going out. It was the 17th April 2006, and it was the happiest day of my life.
We had a wonderful time together. I remember one evening in June 2006, after finishing our exams, we packed a dinner of boiled eggs, rocket, cheshire cheese and crusty brown bread, cycled into the fens to the north of Cambridge and enjoyed a relaxing picnic on the verge outside the Queensholme Bloodstock Stables near Willingham. I remember her laughing as she snapped a photograph of a big green caterpillar crawling around in the grass near her lap.
I remember my 21st birthday, at her house in the Alps, with a delicious carrot cake and beautiful, hot continental weather to travel up a funicular railway and enjoy a meal overlooking the mountain lakes.
I remember a second year in Cambridge, living next door to each other on a corridor of our friends at Girton's Wolfson Court. I remember fondue evenings followed by games of Mario Kart 64 in my room, with people sitting on the bed and huddled on the floor to gather round and watch. She always won, no matter how hard we tried! I remember visiting her home again -- this time at the New Year -- and travelling far into the highest mountains to find a resort with ski-able snow. I remember carrying her new kayak to the river on her 20th birthday in the pouring rain, and watching the fireworks with her at the First and Third Trinity May Ball.
I asked her to marry me, and she said, "Yes." We went to a jeweller together, and together we decided to have a beautiful ring made to order: a sapphire flanked by two smaller diamonds. It was the second happiest day of my life.
At College again in our third year, we lived next door to each other again. I remember my happiness and her joy as I watched her win all of her kayaking varsity events, and I remember her endless months of struggling with mountains of horrendous maths problems. I remember punting on the Cam, our finals behind us, and not a care in the world. I remember her graduation, and looked forward to her being there at mine.
But then things changed. In September 2008 she went to York, to do a PGCE in secondary mathematics, while I remained in Cambridge, plugging away at the final year of my MEng. And suddenly it was not "we" who told the story any more, it was "she" and "I." I dutifully dragged her bicycle and her clothes and her books up to York on the train, longing to spend as much time as I could with the one I love. She seemed unwilling to make the time to come down from York to visit me, and when she came seemed to wish she hadn't. When I was there, it was as if she resented my presence, as if I was intruding into her privacy. Something had changed, and I was bewildered and confused.
She spoke to me less and less on the telephone, and never seemed to want to chat with me online. I was distraught. "What is going wrong?" I wondered. "Was it something I have done? Was it something I didn't do?" Yet I loved her still, with all my heart, and arranged a surprise visit to her in York. It was a cold night in March, but she was icy. It seemed like the relationship I cherished as much as life itself was hanging by a tenterhook.
The final examinations of my MEng began on the 17th April 2009, and it was on the 19th April I received the letter that I had expected but which I hoped would never come. Just over three years after our relationship had begun, it was over. It was the worst day of my life.
That was four months ago, and now she is with a new man, or at least, that is what her Facebook status says. Four devastating months, in which my life has crumbled to pieces around my ears as if struck by a tsunami; not only my future, but my past as well.
I looked forward to marrying her, starting a household together and eventually starting a family together, and now that will never happen. All my hopes, all my dreams are the wreckage of jagged splinters left after the box of Christmas baubles is hurled down the stairs. My heart is a broken mess of mingled sorrow, love, jealousy and anger.
But worse, I find myself doubting whether the way I saw things was in fact the way they really were. Towards the end of the relationship, I was fooling myself when I told myself that she loved me and that this was just a hiccough that could be put right by showing her that I loved her. But for how long? How long did she hide the way she felt about me? Did she do it out of some misplaced wish to avoid "hurting my feelings," or because she was afraid of how I might react? What did I do, or not do, or what about me was it that drove her away from me? Is the truth of the matter that I was too devoted, too trusting?
I fear -- I so dreadfully fear -- that even when our friends were sending us cards to congratulate us on our engagement, even then she was doubting whether I was the man for her, and she didn't tell me. And that would mean that, for more than a year and half of my life, the reality I perceived did not exist. I was living in a dream world.
How I wish, how I so terribly desire for that dream world to be real. Because, at the same time as I continue to love her wholly, I know now that we will never -- can never -- be together again. She has changed my life forever; but I hadn't expected it to be like this.
My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle, and are spent without hope.
--Job 7:6
In space-related news:
According to a new interim report from the US National Research Council, NASA's current near-Earth object surveys will not meet the congressionally mandated goal of discovering 90 percent of all objects over 140 meters in diameter by 2020. Funding for near-Earth object activities at NASA has been constrained, with most costs being met by funds from other programs.
What a surprise! Underfunded science programmes have difficulty meeting targets! In addition to complaining about funding, the full report (which is free to download) has some interesting information on the current technology and facilities used for detecting near-Earth objects.
Another of the report's findings was that:
The Arecibo Observatory telescope continues to play a unique role in characterization of NEOs, providing unmatched precision and accuracy in orbit determination and insight into size, shape, surface structure, multiplicity, and other physical properties for objects within its declination coverage and detection range.
I find this particularly interesting in the light of concerted efforts in recent years to shut the Arecibo facility down "to save money."
Congress should make up their minds: they can mandate and fund public research, or do neither.
