Paul Boddie's Free Software-related blog

Almost a year ago, a huge number of graphs and charts on Wikipedia became unviewable because a security issue had been identified in the underlying JavaScript libraries employed by the MediaWiki Graph extension, necessitating this extension’s deactivation. Since then, much effort has been expended formulating a strategy to deal with the problem, although it does not appear to have brought about any kind of workaround, let alone a solution.

The Graph extension provided a convenient way of embedding data into a MediaWiki page that would then be presented as, say, a bar chart. Since it is currently disabled on Wikipedia, the documentation fails to show what these charts looked like, but they were fairly basic, clean and not unattractive. Fortunately, the Internet Archive has a record of older Wikipedia articles, such as one relevant to this topic, and it is able to show such charts from the period before the big switch-off:

Performance evolution of the Archimedes and various competitors: a chart produced by the Graph extension

The syntax for describing a chart suffered somewhat from following the style that these kinds of extensions tend to have, but it was largely tolerable. Here is an example:

{{Image frame
 | caption=Performance evolution of the Archimedes and various competitors
 | content = {{Graph:Chart
 | width=400
 | xAxisTitle=Year
 | yAxisTitle=VAX MIPS
 | legend=Product and CPU family
 | type=rect
 | x=1987,1988,1989,1990,1991,1992,1993
 | y1=2.8,2.8,2.8,10.5,13.8,13.8,15.0
 | y2=0.5,1.4,2.8,3.6,3.6,22.2,23.3
 | y3=2.1,3.4,6.6,14.7,19.2,30,40.3
 | y4=1.6,2.1,3.3,6.1,8.3,10.6,13.1
 | y1Title=Archimedes (ARM2, ARM3)
 | y2Title=Amiga (68000, 68020, 68030, 68040)
 | y3Title=Compaq Deskpro (80386, 80486, Pentium)
 | y4Title=Macintosh II, Quadra/Centris (68020, 68030, 68040)
}}
}}

Unfortunately, rendering this data as a collection of bars on two axes relied on a library doing all kinds of potentially amazing but largely superfluous things. And, of course, this introduced the aforementioned security issue that saw the whole facility get switched off.

After a couple of months, I decided that I wasn’t going to see my own contributions diminished by a lack of any kind of remedy, and so I did the sensible thing: use an established tool to generate charts, and upload the charts plus source data and script to Wikimedia Commons, linking the chart from the affected articles. The established tool of choice for this exercise was gnuplot.

Migrating the data was straightforward and simply involved putting the data into a simpler format. Here is an excerpt of the data file needed by gnuplot, with some items updated from the version shown above:

# Performance evolution of the Archimedes and various competitors (VAX MIPS by year)
#
Year    "Archimedes (ARM2, ARM3)" "Amiga (68000, 68020, 68030, 68040)" "Compaq Deskpro (80386, 80486, Pentium)" "Mac II, Quadra/Centris (68020, 68030, 68040)"
1987    2.8     0.5     2.1     1.6
1988    2.8     1.5     3.5     2.1
1989    2.8     3.0     6.6     3.3
1990    10.5    3.6     14.7    6.1
1991    13.8    3.6     19.2    8.3
1992    13.8    18.7    28.5    10.6
1993    15.1    21.6    40.3    13.1

Since gnuplot is more flexible and more capable in parsing data files, we get the opportunity to tabulate the data in a more readable way, also adding some commentary without it becoming messy. I have left out the copious comments in the actual source data file to avoid cluttering this article.

And gnuplot needs a script, requiring a little familiarisation with its script syntax. We can see that various options are required, along with axis information and some tweaks to the eventual appearance:

set terminal svg enhanced size 1280 960 font "DejaVu Sans,24"
set output 'Archimedes_performance.svg'
set title "Performance evolution of the Archimedes and various competitors"
set xlabel "Year"
set ylabel "VAX MIPS"
set yrange [0:*]
set style data histogram
set style histogram cluster gap 1
set style fill solid border -1
set key top left reverse Left
set boxwidth 0.8
set xtics scale 0
plot 'Archimedes_performance.dat' using 2:xtic(1) ti col linecolor rgb "#0080FF", '' u 3 ti col linecolor rgb "#FF8000", '' u 4 ti col linecolor rgb "#80FF80", '' u 5 ti col linecolor rgb "#FF80FF"

The result is a nice SVG file that, when uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, will be converted to other formats for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. The file can then be augmented with the data and the script in a manner that is not entirely elegant, but the result allows people to inspect the inputs and to reproduce the chart themselves. Here is the PNG file that the automation produces for embedding in Wikipedia articles:

Performance evolution of the Archimedes and various competitors: a chart produced by gnuplot and converted from SVG to PNG for Wikipedia usage.

Embedding the chart in a Wikipedia article is as simple as embedding the SVG file, specifying formatting properties appropriate to the context within the article:

[[File:Archimedes performance.svg|thumb|upright=2|Performance evolution of the Archimedes and various competitors]]

The control that gnuplot provides over the appearance is far superior to that of the Graph extension, meaning that the legend in the above figure could be positioned more conveniently, for instance, and there is a helpful gallery of examples that make familiarisation and experimentation with gnuplot more accessible. So I felt rather happy and also vindicated in migrating my charts to gnuplot despite the need to invest a bit of time in the effort.

While there may be people who need the fancy JavaScript-enabled features of the currently deactivated Graph extension in their graphs and charts on Wikipedia, I suspect that many people do not. For that audience, I highly recommend migrating to gnuplot and thereby eliminating dependencies on technologies that are simply unnecessary for the application.

It would be absurd to suggest riding in a spaceship every time we wished to go to the corner shop, knowing full well that more mundane mobility techniques would suffice. Maybe we should adopt similar, proportionate measures of technology adoption and usage in other areas, if only to avoid the inconvenience of seeing solutions being withdrawn for prolonged periods without any form of relief. Perhaps, in many cases, it would be best to leave the spaceship in its hangar after all.

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging? It wasn’t hard to be reminded of that when reading an assertion that a “competitive” Web browser engine needs funding to the tune of at least $100 million a year, presumably on development costs, and “really” $200-300 million.

Web browsers have come a long way since their inception. But they now feature absurdly complicated layout engines, all so that the elements on the screen can be re-jigged at a moment’s notice to adapt to arbitrary changes in the content, and yet they still fail to provide the kind of vanity publishing visuals that many Web designers seem to strive for, ceding that territory to things like PDFs (which, of course, generally provide static content). All along, the means of specifying layout either involves the supposedly elegant but hideously overcomplicated CSS, or to have scripts galore doing all the work, presumably all pounding the CPU as they do so.

So, we might legitimately wonder whether the “modern Web” is another example of technology for technology’s sake: an effort fuelled by Valley optimism and dubiously earned money that not only undermines interoperability and choice by driving out implementers who are not backed by obscene wealth, but also promotes wastefulness in needing ever more powerful systems to host ever more complicated browsers. Meanwhile, the user experience is constantly degraded: now you, the user, get to indicate whether hundreds of data surveillance companies should be allowed to track your activities under the laughable pretense of “legitimate interest”.

It is entirely justified to ask whether the constant technological churn is giving users any significant benefits or whether they could be using less sophisticated software to achieve the same results. In recent times, I have had to use the UK Government’s Web portal to initiate various processes, and one might be surprised to learn that it provides a clear, clean and generally coherent user experience. Naturally, it could be claimed that such nicely presented pages make good use of the facilities that CSS and the Web platform have to offer, but I think that it provides us with a glimpse into a parallel reality where “less” actually does deliver “more”, because reduced technological complication allows society to focus on matters of more pressing concern.

Having potentially hundreds or thousands of developers beavering away on raising the barrier to entry for delivering online applications is surely another example of how our societies’ priorities can be led astray by self-serving economic interests. We should be able to interact with online services using far simpler technology running on far more frugal devices than multi-core systems with multiple gigabytes of RAM. People used things like Minitel for a lot of the things people are doing today, for heaven’s sake. If you had told systems developers forty years ago that, in the future, instead of just connecting to a service and interacting with it, you would end up connecting to dozens of different services (Google, Facebook, random “adtech” platforms running on dark money) to let them record your habits, siphon off data, and sell you things you don’t want, they would probably have laughed in your face. We were supposed to be living on the Moon by now, were we not?

The modern Web apologist would, of course, insist that the modern browser offers so much more: video, for instance. I was reminded of this a few years ago when visiting the Oslo Airport Express Web site which, at that time, had a pointless video of the train rolling into the station behind the user interface controls, making my browser run rather slowly indeed. As an undergraduate, our group project was to design and implement a railway timetable querying system. On one occasion, our group meeting focusing on the user interface slid, as usual, into unfocused banter where one participant helpfully suggested that behind the primary user interface controls there would have to be “dancing ladies”. To which our only female group member objected, insisting that “dancing men” would also have to be an option. The discussion developed, acknowledging that a choice of dancers would first need to be offered, along with other considerations of the user demographic, even before asking the user anything about their rail journey.

Well, is that not where we are now? But instead of being asked personal questions, a bunch of voyeurs have been watching your every move online and have already deduced the answers to those questions and others. Then, a useless video and random developer excess drains away your computer’s interactivity as you type into treacle, trying to get a sensible result from a potentially unhelpful and otherwise underdeveloped service. How is that hole coming along, again?

This has been going on for years, but a recent upgrade brought it to my attention and it rather says everything about what is wrong with the way technology is supposedly improved. If you define a style for your Web pages using a monospaced font like Courier, Firefox still decides to convert letter pairs like “fi” and “fl” to ligatures. In other words, it squashes the two letters together into a single character.

Now, I suppose that it does this in such a way that the resulting ligature only occupies the space of a single character, thereby not introducing proportional spacing that would disrupt the alignment of characters across lines, but it does manage to disrupt the distribution of characters and potentially the correspondence of characters between lines. Worst of all, though, this enforced conversion is just ugly.

Here is what WordPress seems to format without suffering from this problem, by explicitly using the “monospace” font-style identifier:

long client_flush(file_t *file);

And here is what happens when Courier is chosen as the font:

long client_flush(file_t *file);

In case theming, browser behaviour, and other factors obscure the effect I am attempting to illustrate, here it is with the ligatures deliberately introduced:

long client_flush(file_t *file);

In fact, the automatic ligatures do remain as two distinct letters crammed into a single space whereas I had to go and find the actual ligatures in LibreOffice’s “special character” dialogue to paste into the example above. One might argue that by keeping the letters distinct, it preserves the original text so that it can be copied and pasted back into a suitable environment, like a program source file or an interactive prompt or shell. But still, when the effect being sought is not entirely obtained, why is anyone actually bothering to do this?

It seems to me that this is yet another example of “design” indoctrination courtesy of the products of companies like Apple and Adobe, combined with the aesthetics-is-everything mentality that values style over substance. How awful it is that someone may put the letter “f” next to the letter “i” or “l” without pulling them closer together and using stylish typographic constructs!

Naturally, someone may jump to the defence of the practice being described here, claiming that what is really happening is kerning, as if someone like me might not have heard of it. Unfortunately for them, I spent quite a bit of time in the early 1990s – quite possibly before some of today’s “design” gurus were born – learning about desktop publishing and typography (for a system that had a coherent outline font system before platforms like the Macintosh and Windows did). Generally, you don’t tend to apply kerning to monospaced fonts like Courier: the big hint is the “monospaced” bit.

Apparently, the reason for this behaviour is something to do with the font library being used and it will apparently be fixed in future Firefox releases, or at least ones later than the one I happen to be using in Debian. Workarounds using configuration files reminiscent of the early 2000s Linux desktop experience apparently exist, although I don’t think they really work.

But anyway, well done to everyone responsible for this mess, whether it was someone’s great typographic “design” vision being imposed on everyone else, or whether it was just that yet more technologies were thrown into the big cauldron and stirred around without any consideration of the consequences. I am sure yet more ingredients will be thrown in to mask the unpleasant taste, also conspiring to make all our computers run more slowly.

Sometimes I think that “modern Web” platform architects have it as their overriding goal to reproduce the publishing solutions of twenty to thirty years ago using hardware hundreds or even thousands of times more powerful, yet delivering something that runs even slower and still producing comparatively mediocre results. As if the aim is to deliver something akin to a turn-of-the-century Condé Nast publication on the Web with gigabytes of JavaScript.

But maybe, at least for the annoyance described here, the lesson is that if something is barely worth doing, largely because it is probably only addressing someone’s offended sense of aesthetics, maybe just don’t bother doing it. There are, after all, plenty of other things in the realm of technology and beyond that more legitimately demand humanity’s attention.

Recent discussions about the purpose and functioning of the FSFE have led me to consider the broader picture of what I would expect Free Software and its developers and advocates to seek to achieve in wider society. It was noted, as one might expect, that as a central component of its work the FSFE seeks to uphold the legal conditions for the use of Free Software by making sure that laws and regulations do not discriminate against Free Software licensing.

This indeed keeps the activities of Free Software developers and advocates viable in the face of selfish and anticompetitive resistance to the notions of collaboration and sharing we hold dear. Advocacy for these notions is also important to let people know what is possible with technology and to be familiar with our rich technological heritage. But it turns out that these things, although rather necessary, are not sufficient for Free Software to thrive.

Upholding End-User Freedoms

Much is rightfully made of the four software freedoms: to use, share, study and modify, and to propagate modified works. But it seems likely that the particular enumeration of these four freedoms was inspired (consciously or otherwise) by those famously stated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his 1941 “State of the Union” address.

Although some of Roosevelt’s freedoms are general enough to be applicable in any number of contexts (freedom of speech and freedom from want, for instance), others arguably operate on a specific level appropriate for the political discourse of the era. His freedom from fear might well be generalised to go beyond national aggression and to address the general fears and insecurities that people face in their own societies. Indeed, his freedom of worship might be incorporated into a freedom from persecution or freedom from prejudice, these latter things being specialised but logically consequent forms of a universal freedom from fear.

But what might end-users have to fear? The list is long indeed, but here we might as well make a start. They might fear surveillance, the invasion of their privacy and of being manipulated to their disadvantage, the theft of their data, their identity and their belongings, the loss of their access to technology, be that through vandalism, technological failure or obsolescence, or the needless introduction of inaccessible or unintuitive technology in the service of fad and fashion.

Using technology has always entailed encountering risks, and the four software freedoms are a way of mitigating those risks, but as technology has proliferated it would seem that additional freedoms, or additional ways of asserting these freedoms, are now required. Let us look at some areas where advocacy and policy work fail to reach all by themselves.

Cultivating Free Software Development

Advocating for decent laws and the fair treatment of Free Software is an essential part of organisations like the FSFE. But there also has to be Free Software out in the wider world to be treated fairly, and here we encounter another absent freedom. Proponents of the business-friendly interpretation of “open source” insist that Free Software happens all by itself, that somewhere someone will find the time to develop a solution that is ripe for wider application and commercialisation.

Of course, this neglects the personal experience of any person actually doing Free Software development. Even if people really are doing a lot of development work in their own time, playing out their roles precisely as cast in the “sharing economy” (which rather seems to be about wringing the last drops of productivity out of the lower tiers of the economy than anyone in the upper tiers actually participating in any “sharing”), it is rather likely that someone else is really paying their bills, maybe an employer who pays them to do something else during the day. These people squeeze their Free Software contributions in around the edges, hopefully not burning themselves out in the process.

Freedom from want, then, very much applies to Free Software development. For those who wish to do the right thing and even get paid for it, the task is to find a sympathetic employer. Some companies do indeed value Free Software enough to pay people to develop it, maybe because those companies provide such software themselves. Others may only pay people as a consequence of providing non-free software or services that neglect some of the other freedoms mentioned above. And still others may just treat Free Software as that magical resource that keeps on providing code for nothing.

Making sure that Free Software may actually be developed should be a priority for anyone seriously advocating Free Software adoption. Otherwise, it becomes a hypothetical quantity: something that could be used for serious things but might never actually be observed in such forms, easily dismissed as the work of “hobbyists” and not “professionals”, never mind that the same people can act in either capacity.

Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions to suggest for this need. It is fair to state that with a genuine “business case”, Free Software can get funded and find its audience, but that often entails a mixture of opportunism, the right connections, and an element of good fortune, as well as the mindset needed to hustle for business that many developers either do not have or do not wish to cultivate. It also assumes that all Free Software worth funding needs to have some kind of sales value, whereas much of the real value in Free Software is not to be found in things that deliver specific solutions: it is in the mundane infrastructure code that makes such solutions possible.

Respecting the User

Those of us who have persuaded others to use Free Software have not merely been doing so out of personal conviction that it is the ethically-correct thing for us and those others to use. There are often good practical reasons for using Free Software and asserting control over computing devices, even if it might make a little more work for us when things do not work as they should.

Maybe the risks of malware or experience of such unpleasantness modifies attitudes, combined with a realisation that not much help is actually to be had with supposedly familiar and convenient (and illegally bundled) proprietary software when such malevolence strikes. The very pragmatism that Free Software advocates supposedly do not have – at least if you ask an advocate for proprietary or permissively-licensed software – is, in fact, a powerful motivation for them to embrace Free Software in the first place. They realise that control is an illusion without the four software freedoms.

But the story cannot end with the user being able to theoretically exercise those freedoms. Maybe they do not have the time, skills or resources to do so. Maybe they cannot find someone to do so on their behalf, perhaps because nobody is able to make a living performing such services. And all the while, more software is written, deployed and pushed out globally. Anyone who has seen familiar user interfaces becoming distorted, degraded, unfamiliar, frustrating as time passes, shaped by some unfathomable agenda, knows that only a very well-resourced end-user would be able to swim against such an overpowering current.

To respect the user must involve going beyond acknowledging their software freedoms and also acknowledge their needs: for secure computing environments that remain familiar (even if that seems “boring”), that do not change abruptly (because someone had a brainwave in an airport lounge waiting to go to some “developer summit” or other), that allow sensible customisation that can be reconciled with upstream improvements (as opposed to imposing a “my way or the highway”, “delete your settings” ultimatum). It involves recognising their investment in the right thing, not telling them that they have to work harder, or to buy newer hardware, just to keep up.

And this also means that the Free Software movement has to provide answers beyond those concerning the nature of the software. Free Software licensing does not have enough to say about privacy and security, let alone how those things might be upheld in the real world. Yet such concerns do impact Free Software developers, meaning that some kinds of solutions do exist that might benefit a wider audience. Is it not time to deliver things like properly secure communications where people can trust the medium, verify who it is that sends them messages, ignore the time-wasters, opportunists and criminals, and instead focus on the interactions that are meaningful and important?

And is it not time that those with the knowledge and influence in the Free Software realm offered a more coherent path to achieving this, instead of all the many calls for people to “use encryption” only to be presented with a baffling array of options and a summary that combines “it’s complicated” with “you’re on your own”? To bring the users freedom from the kind of fear they experience through a lack of privacy and security? It requires the application of technical knowledge, certainly, but it also requires us to influence the way in which technology is being driven by forces in wider society.

Doing the Right Thing

Free Software, especially when labelled as “open source”, often has little to say about how the realm of technology should evolve. Indeed, Free Software has typically reacted to technological evolution, responding to the demands of various industries, but not making demands of its own. Of course, software in itself is generally but a mere instrument to achieve other things, and there are some who advocate a form of distinction between the specific ethics of software freedom and ethics applying elsewhere. For them, it seems to be acceptable to promote “open source” while undermining the rights and freedoms of others.

Our standards should be far higher than that! Although there is a logical argument to not combine other considerations with the clearly-stated four software freedoms, it should not stop us from complementing those freedoms with statements of our own values. Those who use or are subject to our software should be respected and their needs safeguarded. And we should seek to influence the development of technology to uphold our ideals.

Let us consider a mundane but useful example. The World Wide Web has had an enormous impact on society, providing people with access to information, knowledge, communication, services on a scale and with a convenience that would have been almost unimaginable only a few decades ago. In the beginning, it was slow (due to bandwidth limitations, even on academic networks), it was fairly primitive (compared to some kinds of desktop applications), and it lacked support for encryption and sophisticated interactions. More functionality was needed to make it more broadly useful for the kinds of things people wanted to see using it.

In the intervening years, a kind of “functional escalation” has turned it into something that is indeed powerful, with sophisticated document rendering and interaction mechanisms, perhaps achieving some of the ambitions of those who were there when the Web first gathered momentum. But it has caused a proliferation of needless complexity, as sites lazily call out to pull down megabytes of data to dress up significantly smaller amounts of content, as “trackers” and “analytics” are added to spy on the user, as absurd visual effects are employed (background videos, animated form fields), with the user’s computer now finding it difficult to bear the weight of all this bloat, and with that user struggling to minimise their exposure to privacy invasions and potential exploitation.

For many years it was a given that people would, even should, upgrade their computers regularly. It was almost phrased as a public duty by those who profited from driving technological progress in such a selfish fashion. As is frequently the case with technology, it is only after people have realised what can be made possible that they start to consider whether it should have been made possible at all. Do we really want to run something resembling an operating system in a Web browser? Is it likely that this will be efficient or secure? Can we trust the people who bring us these things, their visions, their competence?

The unquestioning proliferation of technology poses serious challenges to the well-being of individuals and the ecology of our planet. As people who have some control over the way technology is shaped and deployed, is it not our responsibility to make sure that its use is not damaging to its users, that it does not mandate destructive consumer practices, that people can enjoy the benefits – modest as they often are when the background videos and animated widgets are stripped away – without being under continuous threat of being left behind, isolated, excluded because their phone or computer is not this season’s model?

Strengthening Freedoms

In rather too many words, I have described some of the challenges that need to be confronted by Free Software advocates. We need to augment the four software freedoms with some freedoms or statements of our own. They might say that the software and the solutions we want to develop and to encourage should be…

• Sustainable to make: developers and their collaborators should be respected, their contributions fairly rewarded, their work acknowledged and sustained by those who use it
• Sustainable to choose and to use: adopters should have their role recognised, with their choices validated and rewarded through respectful maintenance and evolution of the software on which they have come to depend
• Encouraging of sustainable outcomes: the sustainability of the production and adoption of the software should encourage sustainability in other ways, promoting longevity, guarding against obsolescence, preventing needless and frivolous consumption, strengthening society and making it fairer and more resilient

It might be said that in order to have a fairer, kinder world there are no shortage of battles to be fought. With such sentiments, the discussion about what more might be done is usually brought to a swift conclusion. In this article, I hope to have made a case that what we can be doing is often not so different from what we are already doing.

And, of course, this brings us back to the awkward matter of why we, or the organisations we support, are not always so enthusiastic about these neglected areas of concern. Wouldn’t we all be better off by adding a dimension of sustainability to the freedoms we already recognise and enjoy?

I was tempted to reply to a comment on LWN.net’s news article “The end of Flash”, where the following observation was made:

So they create a mobile site with a bit fewer graphics and fewer scripts loading up to try to speed it up.

But I found that I had enough to say that I might as well put it here.

A recent experience I had with one airline’s booking Web site involved an obvious pandering to “mobile” users. But to the designers this seemed to mean oversized widgets on any non-mobile device coupled with a frustratingly sequential mode of interaction, as if Fisher-Price had an enterprise computing division and had been contracted to do the work. A minimal amount of information was displayed at any given time, and even normal widget navigation failed to function correctly. (Maybe this is completely unfair to Fisher-Price as some of their products appear to encourage far more sophisticated interaction.)

And yet, despite all the apparent simplification, the site ran abominably slow. Every – single – keypress – took – ages – to – process. Even in normal text boxes. My desktop machine is ancient and mostly skipped the needless opening and closing animations on widgets because it just isn’t fast enough to notice that it should have been doing them before the time limit for doing them runs out. And despite fewer graphics and scripts, it was still heavy on the CPU.

After fighting my way through the booking process, I was pointed to the completely adequate (and actually steadily improving) conventional site that I’d used before but which was now hidden by the new and shiny default experience. And then I noticed a message about customer feedback and the continued availability of the old site: many of their other customers were presumably so appalled by the new “made for mobile” experience and, with some of them undoubtedly having to use the site for their job, booking travel for their colleagues or customers, they’d let the airline know what they thought. I imagine that some of the conversations were pretty frank.

I suppose that when companies manage to decouple themselves from fads and trends and actually listen to their customers (and not via Twitter), they can be reminded to deliver usable services after all. And I am thankful for the “professional customers” who are presumably all that stand in the way of everyone being obliged to download an “app” to book their flights. Maybe that corporate urge will lead to the next reality check for the airline’s “digital strategists”.