Re: Firmware stuff - was systemd fight
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Lu, 03 mar 14, 18:57:09, Bret Busby wrote:
I think that it is unfortunate that we are apparently expected to
throw out all of our hardware (including printers and other such
accessories), and, replace it all, each time a new version of an
operating system, is released.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
(not implying this is the case here though)
The MFP thing, as far as I am aware (I have not yet been able to use
all of its functionality, due to the Debian policy regarding
firmware) [...]
Assumptions. Please start a new thread about how to get your MFP running
with recent Debian.
Query was posted to Debian Printing mailing list in October 2013. No
response.
But, I had understood that the purpose of creating UNIX (and, Linux
IS supposed to be a "UNIX-like" operating system), was to have
available an operating system, upon which software would run without
requiring modification to adapt to the underlying platform.
Well, according to Wikipedia Unix was designed on the PDP-11[1]. Surely
things have changed since, don't you think?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-11
Of course, things have changed.
My first use of UNIX, was on a VAX 11-785 running a version of BSD (4.2,
from memory), about 30-35 years ago. Computer graphics and GUI's, as we
know them, did not exist.
But, that doesnot mean that a programme writen in UNIX "C", then, that
ran, should not be able to run equally well, now,, unless it was faulty
oramlicious, and was trapped by improved protections
Thus, from what I understood, as a crude example, a program written
in "C", would include library and function calls, to standard
libraries, and could happily operate, if it was written in UNIX "C",
on any installation of UNIX, on any hardware platform.
What if in the meantime it has been discovered those libraries and
function calls are inefficient/buggy/etc. and better alternatives have
been implemented? As programs move on to newer libraries and function
calls the old ways just keep rotting because nobody is using them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_rot
Unless they were found to be harmful (malicious, or, harmful to the
system, as opposed to being inefficient), they should have been
preserved.
Change for the sake of chanmge, especially when it eliminates useful
things, is not good.
If the majority are not using something, that should not cause it to be
deleted.
MNost people now do not use an axe or a shovel, or, know how to use
them, but, they are still useful tools.
And, while I understand that a person who knows how to use a double
headed axe properly, is even more rare, if I happened to know how to use
one, I would want useable double headed axes to be still available.
That should be relatively simple - the preservation of the standard
libraries, and, the standard functions, with standard
functionalities, which could be expanded, if needed, but, at the
same time, preserving the standard functionalitites and libraries.
If it would be simple it would have been done :)
Not necessarily.
From memory, making silage is relatively easily done (and, inexpensive),
but few people, now, have even heard of silage, let alone know how to
make it, or, still make it. And, it is supposed to be more nutritious
than hay.
It is simple, when camping, to dig a trench around a tent, to drain away
rain water, but few who go camping with tents, have any idea of the
concept, or, implement it, instead, getting their tents flooded.
Putting cold water in a pot, and heating it, before adding milk, to heat
the milk, can stop the milk from sticking to, and, burning to, the
bottom of the pot, but, not everyone does it.
Reading the user guide / instruction manual / other instructions, before
using something new, is relatively simple, but, it is generally not
done.
I think that the problem that has occurred, is that, instead,
mutations have been imposed, so that functions and libraries, have
instead, been renamed or, replaced, in order to impose obsolescence,
rather than to maintain functionality.
Not likely, not even for proprietary software.
So, why, then, is software written that is compatible with Debian 5, not
compatible with Debian v n>5?
It seems to be "Who needs functionality, when we have all of these
whistles and bells? They might not serve any useful purpose, but,
they catch your attention."
"whistles and bells" also have their purpose, even if you (or me)
disagree.
Some have have purpose other than to irritate, but, not many.
We are aware (I think, and, I believe) that Microsoft, in order to
force sales of its products, designs operating system and
application software, versions, that are not backward compatible, so
as to force sales, so that it can keep "squeezing blood out of a
stone", requiring people to be continually buying software that they
should not need.
Hanlon's razor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Do you mean Heinlein's razor?
"
"Heinlein's Razor" has since been defined as variations on Never
attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity,
but don't rule out malice. This quotation is attributed to Albert
Einstein in Peter W. Singer's 2009 book Wired for War.[15]
"
- from your link
But, malice abounds in trade and in government, along with stupidity.
Here in Western Australia, we have a government that has been bribed by
an african corporation, to restrict trading hours, so that the african
corporation is given unfair trading advantage through trading hours
restrictions that apply to almost everyone else, that prohibit Western
Australian and Australian retail companies from trading when the african
corporation is allowed to trade.
We have the imposition of digital television with the deletion of
analogue television, and the reception here, is reminiscent of 40-50
years ago, when television would often "go off the air" - one of the
networks is inaccessible more than it is accessible, now, with digital
television.
We had the elimination of analogue cellphone netwroks, replaced with
digital cellphone networks, which do not provide the same coverage, so,
now, we have gobe backward about 20 years, in cellphone area coverage.
In terms of malice, we have governments imposing human rights
violations, perhaps, crimes against humanity "You are not allowed to
know the evidence against you - we will give you a trial and then we
will convict you - you have no human rights - this IS Australia", and,
internationally, we have the Edward Snowden stuff, where the governments
in power, have made it clear that truth is illegal and is treason.
I don't know and don't really care. Debian meets my needs on my home
computers and at work (mostly a MS shop) I don't have much influence
anyway.
The "I don't care., reminds me of the passage attributed to Pastor
Neimuller.
Only when what a person wants to work, stops working, do such people
care.
My MFP has lost most of its functionality, due to changes imposed.
Yours has not.
So, I care, and, you do not.
It is unfortunate, when people do not care about problems that they
personally might not suffer.
The apathy is why crime and corruption flourish in this country, and,
why human rights and democracy and democratic and democratically elected
governments, have yet to appear in this country.
Oh, and, yes, we have gross governmental incompetence in this country,
in addition to the malice, which is why this state has to have a rerun
of the last year's election of its half-members of the federal senate
(which is, itself, a bodgy part of the house of ill-repute) because the
electoral commision lost too many votes, invalidating the election,
apart from the thousands of multiple votes across the country ("How
many times have you voted so far in this election?" "Well, I think
that I have not yet voted more than twenty times." "Okay, here's your
next ballot paper, but, make sure that you do not cast more than fifty
votes for the same candidate, or we might do something about it."),
which should have required a full federal general election, due to it
being anyone's guess what the real election outcome might have been, if
not for all of the irregularities.
That can be put down to gross incomptence, leading to a completely
invalid "election" outcome, which is accepted, due to overriding public
apathy.
But, incompetence and invalid results, are regarded as acceptable in
elections, as is the bribery and corruption in the government, so,
"Heinlein's razor" is, perhaps, the more appropriate proverb for
quoting.
And, as you have indicated, "Apathy rules" - "I do not care about what
is wrong, as long as it does not affect me."
But, Linux, and, the Linux community, should not have the same
objective; it should instead, be preserving the (that I believe to
be) primary objective of UNIX; that a programme that is written for
one version, can run on any version, unless it is harmful, in which
case, it gets blocked, and the user/administrator, notified.
Just imagine that my IPTV device (BTW, AFAICT it runs Linux) would
notify me that for security reasons it won't connect to the internet
anymore. Or it just stops working because my ISP switched to IPv6
exclusively and it doesn't have support for that. Not very useful, isn't
it?
Of course, I could (still) switch back to old style TV, but then, I
rather enjoy watching TV in FullHD and Dolby Digital 5.1 sound. And at
some point providers will just shut down the old service, because there
is not enough demand for it to justify the maintenance costs.
If you have the two systems available to you, then, you are lucky - if
your preferred one fails, then you can fall back on the other one.
Not everyone is so lucky.
I'd rather my IPTV provider keeps updating the software as needed and
when this is not feasible anymore it offers me a good deal for an
upgrade. Or even better, be able to watch IPTV with (e.g) Debian on one
of my Raspberry Pis. Without any non-free firmware, of course. But
unfortunately we are not there, *yet*.
If I write a FORTAN 4 program, I expect it to be able to run on a
FORTRAN 77 platform, or, a FORTRAN 90 platform (I do not know what
is the current latest ANSI standard version of FORTRAN - my FORTRAN
programming ended, when FORTRAN 90 was just a proposal), otherwise,
I would regard the subsequent platform on which it would not run, as
defective.
Similarly, if I wrote a program in UNIX "C", I woud expect it to run
on any version of UNIX, and, hopefully, Linux, that was created at
or after the same time as the UNIC "C" development environment.
I'm not a programmer, but as far as I understand FORTRAN is quite
application specific, while C is general purpose. Aren't you comparing
apples with oranges?
FORTRAN may have been application specific (but, not necessarily so - I
remember an assignement to write in FORTRAN 77 (or in FORTAN 4 - which
exactly, of the two, I am not sure, now - it was about 30 years ago), a
pre-processor to convert between FORTRAN 4 and FORTRAN 77 code, and so,
it could be used for more than just performing scientific
calculations; would that make it a kind of expert system, when it
translates computer programmes from one language, to another?), but, I
understand that, with the advent of FORTRAN 90, the role of FORTRAN was
to change from that time.
I have a photovoltaic inverter output data logging program, that is
apparently written for MS Windows XP (the only version of the
particular programme, of which I am aware). If that would not run on
MS Windows version 7 (from what I have seen of MS Windows 8, about
the best analogy to MS Windows 8, of which I can think, is that it
reminds me of what we used to shovel out of the yard, after the cows
were milked, except, the stuff that we used to shovel out of the
yard, after the cows were milked, was useful, and, out of it, coud
grow, useful things), I would regard MS Windows 7, as defective.
Wait, wasn't Windows supposed to *not* be backwards compatible?
From what I understand, that depended on the particular version of MS
Windows. I think that Windows 9x, was still supposed to run Windows 3.x
programmes, as an example.
If nothing else, MS Windows 7, in the case of the photovoltaic
output data logging software programme, and, similarly, Linux, in
the case of drivers, should be able to run an instance of the
programme, in an emulation of the earlier version of the operating
system, on the curent version of the operating system, in a virtual
machine, or something, if it would not run "natively" in the later
version of the operating system.
This can be done on Linux if current software doesn't meet your needs
(which hasn't been established yet). In theory it should also be
possible to run the MS Windows software on Linux (e.g. via wine), but I
didn't follow your thread on that issue, so can't comment any further.
Current software does not meet my needs. I can not get the functionality
from my MFP, that I had with Debian Linux 5. I have not been able to
find software for the PV inverter data logging, apart from the
(apparently) MS Windows XP version.
Running the Windows software for the PV inverter data logging, has
already been discussed, regarding the particular inverter software - a
person has advised me that the programme will load on top of WINE, but
will not function.
And, from my understanding, WINE is very limited, in which Windows
software, it will run.
But, I see no reason why a later version of an operating system,
should not be able to natively run software written for an earlier
version of the operating system, with, if needed, protections
inbuilt into the later version of the operating system.
Cost of maintenance. In case of FLOSS this means the time of interested
contributors.
Ah, "there's the rub".
And that is why, also, useful programs, like Firestarter and Arora,
have "gone by the way", and have been abandoned.
And, that is why what runs on one version of Debian Linux, no longer
works on the next version of Debian Linux.
Which is my problem.
But, is it better to keep maintaining working software, or, to abandon
working software, for the sake of creating new "whistles and bells",
that do not provide the functionality and usefulness?
--
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
..............
"So once you do know what the question actually is,
you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
Chapter 28 of Book 1 of
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
A Trilogy In Four Parts",
written by Douglas Adams,
published by Pan Books, 1992
....................................................
Reply to: