Not sure if I wasn’t paying enough attention, but I entirely missed the “Mozilla Strategy Articulation and 2016 Topline Targets” session from two weeks ago, recorded on Air Mozilla. This was the start of the 2016 planning process, where Chris Beard outlines our mission and 5-year vision. It should be required viewing for everyone interested in where Mozilla is or should be going in 2016, and in the next 5 years. We are planning for 2016 now; your input is welcomed.
Ahmed Nefzaoui’s blog post about RTL languages introduced me to this awesome video, which is funny, charming, poignant and incidentally makes great points about phone usability:
It got me thinking: what would a phone for someone like Dotty look like? The more I thought about it, the more I realised the answer is “a tablet”.
Imagine a 7″ tablet with 4G phone hardware, so it has an always-on, fast, low-latency Internet connection. It is nice and big, and so easily held and viewed, and the screen controls can be made bigger for those with poor eyesight. It has no fiddly close-together hardware buttons to push. It can be unlocked with a simple swipe. You don’t have to know which is the menu button, which is *, or deal with T9 predictive text input. It has twin directional mics and speakers, with echo cancellation, so it doesn’t need to be held to the ear and the speaker positioned accurately. It has a built-in stand, so it can be placed at a good angle for calls on any flat surface. It has a camera for video calls, which (given sufficient bandwidth and frame rate) also allows for lip reading. It can record, and then email or MMS, short voice clips, which are much easier to create than text messages. It has wireless charging (or perhaps a dock) to avoid having to connect fiddly micro USB cables. One day, it might have voice recognition and speech-to-text, but perhaps not today. And it’s still small enough to fit in a handbag on the rare occasions it needs to go somewhere.
Thinking of all the advantages… why would anyone build a phone for old people in a mobile phone form factor?
Randall Munroe of XKCD has written a whole book which explains things using only simple words. It’s called “Thing Explainer“. He’s also written a writing checker for people who want to write more things like that.
I am asking everyone to see if they can write the ten key points of the Mozilla Manifesto in a new way, saying the same things but using only simple words which his checker likes (like this writing that you are reading does).
You are allowed to use “Internet” even though it’s not a simple word, but if you find a way to not use “Internet”, that’s even better. You are also allowed to use “Mozilla” in the heading at the top, which will be “Mozilla Manifesto” but using only simple words.
It’s probably best if you put up your writing somewhere else on the Internet and then add some information here to say where it is. But if that’s a problem for you, you can put your writing here instead.
The person who makes the best writing will get something. I don’t know what yet. But making the best writing should make you happy anyway.
If you think this is a good and fun idea, then please tell everyone you know (in a nice way) so they can try as well.
I hope everything goes very well for you in this.
Q: What is the quickest way to delete all the files in a sub-directory, plus all the files in any sub-directories inside it, and so on as deep as directories go, along with the sub-directories themselves? In other words how do you delete an entire branch of sub-directories within sub-directories without typing a lot of DEL, CD and RD commands?
A: There is no easy way for DOS to do this unassisted. The nearest any version comes is DR DOS which can delete the files, but not remove the sub-directories themselves. The relevant command is:
XDEL *.* /S
No version of MS-DOS can automatically delete files in sub-directories. To do the job in its entirety you need a third-party tree pruning utility. You can often find these in PD/shareware libraries. Alternatively, commercial disk utilities such as Xtree will do it.
Leaving aside the amazingness of not having recursive delete, I wonder why the DR-DOS folk decided to produce a command which removed the files but not the directories?
I was browsing the Serena website today, and came across a white paper: “Time to harden the SDLC. Open Source: does it still make sense? (10 reasons enterprises are changing their policies)”. You are required to supply personal information to download a copy, and they force this by only providing the link by email. However, intrigued, I requested one.
Apparently, enterprises are questioning their use of Open Source software (presumably in the specific area of software development) because:
- Chinese hackers stealing things
- Chinese hackers changing things
- There is no support
- Man-in-the-middle attacks
- Local copies of source code are easy to steal
- Edward Snowden
- Git is hard to use (I’ll give them this one)
The list ends with this wonderfully inconsistent paragraph:
All of this seems very alarmist: what is the true situation? The truth is no one really knows because no one is talking about it. There is a clear, present and obvious danger from using open source solutions in support of your technology stack. You have to decide if the risk is worth it.
No-one really knows, but there’s a clear, present and obvious danger? I see. The only clear, present and obvious danger demonstrated here is the one that git is posing to Serena’s business…
This looks like fun – it’s Mycroft, an “open source AI” (basically, Siri, Cortana, Google Now etc). It would be even better if they did the language processing locally, but at least if it’s open source you can see what it is doing. There’s a stretch goal of $125k for Linux desktop control, which would be very cool. The drive closes in six days, and they still need $10,000 or so to hit their goal. Back it today; I have :-)
Q: Could you tell me if it’s possible to make the DIR command list files in alphabetical order?
A: Earlier versions of DOS didn’t allow this but there’s a way round it. MS-DOS 5 gives you an /ON switch to use with DIR, for instance:
DIR *.TXT /ON /P
would list all the files with names ending in .TXT, pause the listing every screenful (/P) and sort the names into alphabetical order (/ON).
Users of earlier DOS programs can shove the output from DIR through a utility program that sorts the listing before printing it on the screen. That utility is SORT.EXE, supplied with DOS. … [So:]
DIR | SORT
diverts the output from DIR into SORT, which sorts the directory listing and sends it to the screen. Put this in a batch file called SDIR.BAT and you will have a sorted directory command called SDIR.
I guess earlier versions of DIR followed the Unix philosophy of “do one thing”…
An excellent moment from “Not Even Close: The State of Computer Security“:
Compare and contrast: a Wall Street Journal article linked directly, and one reached via Google (click the top link in the search results). The former leads to a preview and a paywall (or, at least, a signupwall), the latter does not.
The press are so concerned about the dominance of Google, at least in Europe, that they are making various (also foot-shooting) moves to try and bring in ancillary copyright. So why, I wonder, is the WSJ enhancing that dominance by privileging Google users over other users in terms of access to their content?
Q: Ever since I moved up from my old Amstrad 1512 to a 386 I have been annoyed by the way Num Lock comes on when the PC is started up or re-booted. I still use the numeric keypad in preference to the additional cursor key block. Is there any way Num Lock can be turned off automatically?
A: As far as I know, not even the latest version of DOS allows you to set the state of Num Lock on start-up. However, there is a short program you can create which, when run from AUTOEXEC.BAT, turns Num Lock off. Depending on whether you use MS-DOS or DR DOS, type one of the listings shown here into a text editor and save it as a plain ASCII file called NUMOFF.LST.
MS-DOS (Debug) version: a100 XOR AX,AX MOV DS,AX MOV AL,BYTE PTR (417) AND AL,DF MOV BYTE PTR (417),AL XOR AH,AH INT 21 rcx 10 nNUMOFF.COM w q
DEBUG < NUMOFF.LST
All being well, you will now have a program called NUMOFF.COM. Test it by pressing Num Lock to bring the keyboard light on, and type NUMOFF. The light should go off.
30 years later, this still isn’t trivial in GNOME… But the book authors get kudos for creativity in finding out how to send someone a working and useful binary via the medium of dead trees.
Using the -z option to rsync is a dumb idea on a gigabit network.
Q: I post files containing DTP pages and graphics on floppy disks to a bureau for printing. Recently I produced a file that was too big to fit on the disk and I know that I will be producing more in the future. What’s the best way round the problem?
A. There are a number of solutions, most of them expensive. For example, both you and the bureau could buy modems. A modem is a device that allows computers to be connected via a phone line. You would need software, known as a comms program, to go with the modems. This will allow direct PC-to-PC transfer of files without the need for floppy disks. Since your files are so large, you would need a fast 9600 baud modem [Ed: approx 1 kilobyte per second] with MNP5 compression/error correction to make this a viable option.
In this case, however, I would get hold of a utility program called LHA which is widely available from the shareware/PD libraries that advertise in PC Answers. In earlier incarnations it was known as LHarc. LHA enables you to squash files into less space than they occupied before.
The degree of compression depends on the nature of the file. Graphics and text work best, so for you this is a likely solution. The bureau will need a copy of LHA to un-squash the files before it can use them, or you can use LHA in a special way that makes the compressed files self-unpacking.
LHA has a great advantage over rival utilities in that the author allows you to use it for free. There is no registration fee, as with the similar shareware program PKZip, for example.
Every time they brought out a new, larger hard disk, they used to predict the end of the need for compression…
A software organization wants to make a promise, for example about its data practices. For example, “We don’t store information on your location”. They can keep that promise in two ways: code or policy.
If they were keeping it in code, they would need to be open source, and would simply make sure the code didn’t transmit location information to the server. Anyone can review the code and confirm that the promise is being kept. (It’s sometimes technically possible for the company to publish source code that does one thing, and binaries which do another, but if that was spotted, there would be major reputational damage.)
Geeks like promises kept in code. They can’t be worked around using ambiguities in English, and they can’t be changed without the user’s consent (to a software upgrade). I suspect many geeks think of them as superior to promises kept in policy – “that’s what they _say_, but who knows?”. This impression is reinforced when companies are caught sticking to the letter but not the spirit of their policies.
But some promises can’t be kept in code. For example, you can’t simply not send the user’s IP address, which normally gives coarse location information, when making a web request. More complex or time-bound promises (“we will only store your information for two weeks”) also require policy by their nature. Policy is also more flexible, and using a policy promise rather than a code promise can speed time-to-market due to reduced software complexity and increased ability to iterate.
Question: is this distinction, about where to keep your promises, useful when designing new features?
Question: is it reasonable or misguided for geeks to prefer promises kept in code?
Question: if Mozilla or its partners are using promises kept in policy for e.g. a web service, how can we increase user confidence that such a policy is being followed?
What is a browser for? What should it do, or not do? What should it be?
People within the Mozilla project have been recently discussing the user value of some new features in Firefox. I think a person’s view of questions of this nature will depend on their view of the role of the browser. One option is the “featureless window on the web” view – the browser is nothing, the site is everything. But as one participant said, this leads to all the value-add and features being provided by the sites, which is not a recipe for user control, or for using the browser to advance the Mozilla mission.
I think the best vision for Firefox is as your “Internet butler” – quiet and refined, highly capable, provides what you need even before you know you need it, who gently guides you out of trouble but generally does his thing without you needing to think about him or provide explicit direction or management.
Bertie using an early voice interface prototype
So I’d like to propose the “Jeeves Test” for evaluating feature proposals for Firefox. It works like this: imagine Bertie Wooster, relaxing in an armchair in his apartment, with a cigarette, a gin and tonic, and a tablet computer. Then take the user value proposition of an idea, write it in appropriately deferential language, and see if you can imagine Jeeves whispering it into his ear. If you can’t, perhaps it’s not something we want to do.
To make that a bit more concrete, here are some examples of things that might pass: “Here’s an English translation of this Serbian page, sir”, or “For your safety, sir, access to this malware page has been blocked”. And here are some which might not: “For your convenience, sir, I’ve exempted aol.com from your popup blocker”, or “You’ll be pleased to find, sir, that the user interface has been substantially rearranged”.
There may be occasions where we’d want to do something which doesn’t obviously pass the Jeeves Test, if the effects on the broader web ecosystem of making the change are significantly positive. Some of the things we do to improve web security but which have a short-term compatibility impact might fall into that category. “Let me ensure this site doesn’t load for you, sir” generally doesn’t go down well, after all. But in those cases, that longer-term or broader value has to be clearly articulated – before we make the change – if we are to avoid an exasperated “Dash it, Jeeves… why?” from our userbase.