The Universe of Discourse

It came from... the HOLD SPACE
Since 2002, I've given a talk almost every December for the Philadelphia Linux Users' Group. It seems like most of their talks are about the newest and best developments in Linux applications, which is a topic I don't know much about. So I've usually gone the other way, talking about the oldest and worst stuff. I gave a couple of pretty good talks about how files work, for example, and what's in the inode structure.

I recently posted about my work on Zach Holman's spark program, which culminated in a ridiculous workaround for the shell's lack of fractional arithmetic. That work inspired me to do a talk about all the awful crap we had to deal with before we had Perl. (And the other 'P' languages that occupy a similar solution space.) Complete materials are here. I hope you check them out, because i think they are fun. This post is a bunch of miscellaneous notes about the talk.

One example of awful crap we had to deal with before Perl etc. were invented was that some people used to write 'sed scripts', although I am really not sure how they did it. I tried once, without much success, and then for this talk I tried again, and again did not have much success.

The little guy to the right is known as hallucigenia. It is a creature so peculiar that when the paleontologists first saw the fossils, they could not even agree on which side was uppermost. It has nothing to do with Unix, but I put it on the slide to illustrate "alien horrors from the dawn of time".

Between slides 9 and 10 (about the ed line editor) I did a quick demo of editing with ed. You will just have to imagine this. I first learned to program with a line editor like ed, on a teletypewriter just like the one on slide 8. Modern editors are much better. But it used to be that Unix sysadmins were expected to know at least a little ed, because if your system got into some horrible state where it couldn't mount the /usr partition, you wouldn't be able to run /usr/bin/vi or /usr/local/bin/emacs, but you would still be able to use /bin/ed to fix /etc/fstab or whatever else was broken. Knowing ed saved my bacon several times.

(Speaking of teletypewriters, ours had an attachment for punching paper tape, which you can see on the left side of the picture. The punched chads fell into a plastic chad box (which is missing in the picture), and when I was about three I spilled the chad box. Chad was everywhere, and it was nearly impossible to pick up. There were still chads stuck in the cracks in the floorboards when we moved out three years later. That's why, when the contested election of 2000 came around, I was one of the few people in North America who was not bemused to learn that there was a name for the little punched-out bits.)

Anyway, back to ed. ed has one and only one diagnostic: if you do something it didn't like, it prints ?. This explains the ancient joke on slide 10, which first appeared circa 1982 in the 4.2BSD fortune program.

I really wanted to present a tour de force of sed mastery, but as slides 24–26 say, I was not clever enough. I tried really hard and just could not do it. If anyone wants to fix my not-quite-good-enough sed script, I will be quite grateful.

On slide 28 I called awk a monster. This was a slip-up; awk is not a monster and that is why it does not otherwise appear in this talk. There is nothing really wrong with awk, other than being a little old, a little tired, and a little underpowered.

If you are interested in the details of the classify program, described on slide 29, the sources are still available from the comp.sources.unix archive. People often say "Why don't you just use diff for that?" so I may as well answer that here: You use diff if you have two files and you want to see how they differ. You use classify if you have 59 files, of which 36 are identical, 17 more are also identical to each other but different from the first 36, and the remaining 6 are all weirdos, and you want to know which is which. These days you would probably just use md5sum FILES | accumulate, and in hindsight that's probably how I should have implemented classify. We didn't have md5sum but we had something like it, or I could have made a checksum program. The accumulate utility is trivial.

Several people have asked me to clarify my claim to have invented netcat. It seems that a similar program with the same name is attributed to someone called "Hobbit". Here is the clarification: In 1991 I wrote a program with the functionality I described and called it "netcat". You would run netcat hostname port and it would open a network socket to the indicated address, and transfer data from standard input into the socket, and data from the socket to standard output. I still have the source code; the copyright notice at the top says "21 October 1991". Wikipedia says that the same-named program by the other guy was released on 20 March 1996. I do not claim that the other guy stole it from me, got the idea from me, or ever heard of my version. I do not claim to be the first or only person to have invented this program. I only claim to have invented mine independently.

My own current version of the spark program is on GitHub, but I think Zach Holman's current version is probably simpler and better now.

[ Addendum 20170325: I have revised this talk a couple of times since this blog article was written. Links to particular slides go to the 2011 versions, but the current version is from 2017. There are only minor changes. For example, I removed `awk` from the list of “monsters”. ]

[Other articles in category /Unix] permanent link

Insane calculations in bash
A few weeks ago I wrote an article about various methods of arithmetic calculation in shell scripts and in bash in particular, but it was all leading up to today's article, which I think is more interesting technically.

A while back, Zach Holman (who I hadn't heard of before, but who is apparently a bigwig at GitHub) implemented a kind of cute little hack, called "spark". It's a little shell utility, spark, which gets a list of numbers as its input and uses Unicode block characters to print a little bar graph of the numbers on the output. For example, the invocation:

  spark 2,4,6,8

  ▃▄▆▇

Let's begin by discussing the (very simple) mathematics that underlies drawing bar graphs. Suppose you want to generate a set of bars for the numbers $1, $9, $20. And suppose you can actually generate bars of integer heights only, say integers from 0–7:

  0    1 ▁  2 ▂  3 ▃  4 ▄  5 ▅  6 ▆  7 ▇

Absolute scaling

A reasonable thing to try is to say that since your largest number is $20, we will set 7 bar units = $20. Then 0.35 bar units = $1, and 3.45 bar units = $9. We'll call these the "natural heights" for the bars.

Unfortunately we can't render the bars at their natural heights; we can only render them at integer heights, so we have to round off. 0.35 bar units rounds off to 0, so we will represent $1 as no bar at all. 3.45 bar units rounds off, badly, to 3, but that's the way it goes; if you try to squeeze the numbers from 1 to 20 into the range 0 to 7, something has to give. Anyway, this gives

     (1,9,20) → ( ▃▇)

$$x\rightarrow {n\cdot x \over max } $$

I'll call this method "absolute scaling", because big numbers turn into big bars. (It fails for negative numbers, but we'll assume that the numbers are non-negative.)

     (0…20) → (  ▁▁▁▂▂▂▃▃▄▄▄▅▅▅▆▆▆▇▇)

     (0…20) → ( ▁▁▂▂▂▃▃▃▄▄▄▅▅▅▆▆▆▇▇▇)
     (1,9,20)      → (▁▄▇)

Relative scaling

     (18,19,20) → (▆▇▇)

     (18,19,20) → (▇▇▇)

     (18,19,20) → (▃▅▇)

In general, if we put the baseline at b, the natural height for a bar representing number x is:

$$x\rightarrow {n\cdot (x-b) \over (max-b) } $$

A reasonable choice of b would be the minimum input value, or perhaps a bit less than the minimum input value.

The shell sucks

	$ x=3.5; echo $((x + 1))
	bash: 3.5: syntax error: invalid arithmetic operator (error token is ".5")

My first response to this was to replace all the uses of $((…)) with bc, which, as I explained in the previous article, does not share this problem. M. Holman rejected this, saying that calling out to bc all the time made the program too slow. And there is something to be said for this. M. Holman also said that bc is non-portable, which I find astounding, since it has been in Unix since 1974, but sadly plausible.

So supposing that you take this complaint seriously, what can you do? Are you just doomed? No, I found a solution to the problem that solves all the problems. It is portable, efficient, and correct. It is also slightly insane.

Portable fractions in bash

	$ x=3.5; echo $((x + 1))
	bash: 3.5: syntax error: invalid arithmetic operator (error token is ".5")

	$ x_n=7; x_d=2; echo $((x_n + x_d))/$((x_d))
        9/2

        # given an input number which might be a decimal, convert it to
        # a rational number; set n and d to its numerator and
        # denominator.  For example, 3.3 becomes n=33 and d=10;
        # 17 becomes n=17 and d=1.
        to_rational() {
          # Crapulent bash can't handle decimal numbers, so we will convert
          # the input number to a rational
          if [[ $1 =~ (.*)\.(.*) ]] ; then
              i_part=${BASH_REMATCH[1]}
              f_part=${BASH_REMATCH[2]}
              n="$i_part$f_part";
              d=$(( 10 ** ${#f_part} ))
          else
              n=$1
              d=1
          fi
        }

Now we can rewrite all the shell arithmetic in terms of rational numbers. If a_n and a_d are the numerator and denominator of a, and b_n and b_d are the numerator and denominator of b, then addition, subtraction, multiplication, and even division of a and b are fast, easy, and even portable:

        # a + b
        sum_n = $((a_n * b_d + a_d * b_n))
        sum_d = $((a_d * b_d))

        # a - b
        diff_n = $((a_n * b_d - a_d * b_n))
        diff_d = $((a_d * b_d))

        # a * b
        prod_n = $((a_n * b_n))
        prod_d = $((a_d * b_d))

        # a / b
        quot_n = $((a_n * b_d))
        quot_d = $((a_d * b_n))

        greatest_int = $((a_n / a_d))

        nearest_int = $(( (a_n * 2 + a_d) / (a_d * 2) ))

For complicated calculations, you can work the thing out as several steps, or you can solve it on paper and then just embed a big rational expression. For example, suppose you want to calculate ((x-min)·number_of_tiers)/range, where number_of_tiers is known to be an integer. You could do each operation in a separate step, or you could use instead:

  tick_index_n=$(( ( x_n * min_d - min_n * x_d ) * number_of_tiers * range_d ))
  tick_index_d=$(( range_n * x_d * min_d ))

	function to_dec {
	  n=$1
	  d=$2
          maxit=$(( 1 + ${3:-10} ))
	  while [ $n != 0 -a $maxit -gt -1 ]; do
	    next=$((n/d))
	    if [ "$r" = "" ]; then r="$next."; else r="$r$next"; fi
	    n=$(( (n - d * next) * 10 ))
	    maxit=$(( maxit - 1 ))
	  done
	  r=${r:-'0.'}
	}

Coming next month, libraries in bash for computing with continued fractions using Gosper's algorithms. Ha ha, just kidding. The obvious next step is to implement base-10 floating-point numbers in bash like this:

  prod_mantissa=$((a_mantissa * b_mantissa))
  prod_exponent=$((a_exponent + b_exponent))

[ Addendum 20180101: Shane Hansen did something similar to calculate Euler's number (2.71818…) in Bash a while back. It might be fun to compare our implementations. ]

[Other articles in category /prog] permanent link

I abandon my abusive relationship with Facebook
I have just deactivated my Facebook account, I hope for good.

This interview with Eben Moglen provides many of the reasons, and was probably as responsible as anything for my decision.

But the straw that broke the camel's back was a tiny one. What finally pushed me over the edge was this: "People who can see your info can bring it with them when they use apps.". This time, that meant that when women posted reviews of men they had dated on a dating review site, the review site was able to copy the men's pictures from Facebook to insert into the reviews. Which probably was not what the men had in mind when they first posted those pictures to Facebook.

This was, for me, just a little thing. But it was the last straw because when I read Facebook's explanation of why this was, or wasn't, counter to their policy, I realized that with Facebook, you cannot tell the difference.

For any particular appalling breach of personal privacy you can never guess whether it was something that they will defend (and then do again), or something that they will apologize for (and then do again anyway). The repeated fuckups for which they are constantly apologizing are indistinguishable from their business model.

So I went to abandon my account, and there was a form they wanted me to fill out to explain why: "Reason for leaving (Required)": One choice was "I have a privacy concern.":

Please remember that you can always control the information that you share and who can see it. Before you deactivate, please take a moment to learn more about how privacy works on Facebook. If there is a specific question or concern you have, we hope you'll let us know so we can address it in the future.

Facebook makes this insane claim in full innocence, expecting you to believe it, because they believe it themselves. They make this claim even after the times they have silently changed their privacy policies, the times they have silently violated their own privacy policies, the times they have silently opted their users into sharing of private information, the times they have buried the opt-out controls three pages deep under a mountain of confusing verbiage and a sign that said "Beware of The Leopard".

There's no point arguing with a person who makes a claim like that. Never mind that I was in the process of deactivating my account. I was deactivating my account, and not destroying it, because they refuse to destroy it. They refuse to relinquish the personal information they have collected about me, because after all it is their information, not mine, and they will never, ever give it up, never. That is why they allow you only to deactivate your account, while they keep and continue to use everything, forever.

But please remember that you can always control the information that you share and who can see it. Thanks, Facebook! Please destroy it all and never let anyone see it again. "Er, no, we didn't mean that you could have that much control."

This was an abusive relationship, and I'm glad I decided to walk away.

[ Addendum 20120210: Ricardo Signes points out that these is indeed an option that they claim will permanently delete your account, although it is hard to find. ]

[ Addendum 20220704: Looking back on this from ten years out, I am struck by two things. First, there many many times in the intervening decade that Facebook did horrible, awful things to its users, and I shrugged because I wasn't involved. And second, there were not any times when I regretted not being on Facebook. Leaving was a pure win. Come join me, it's not too late. ]

[Other articles in category /misc] permanent link

Testing for exceptions
The Test::Fatal module makes it very easy to test code that is supposed to throw an exception. It provides an exception function that takes a code block. If the code completes normally, exception { code } returns undefined; if the code throws an exception, exception { code } returns the exception value that was thrown. So for example, if you want to make sure that some erroneous call is detected and throws an exception, you can use this:

        isnt( exception { do_something( how_many_times => "W" ) },
              undef,
              "how_many_times argument requires a number" );

        like( exception { do_something( how_many_times => "W" ) },
              qr/how_many_times is not numeric/,
              "how_many_times argument requires a number" );

Today I almost made the terrible mistake of using the first form instead of the second. The manual suggests that you use the first form, but it's a bad suggestion. The problem is that if you completely screw up the test and write a broken code block that dies, the first test will cheerfully succeed anyway. For example, suppose you make a typo in the test code:

        isnt( exception { do_something( how_many_tims => "W" ) },
              undef,
              "how_many_times argument requires a number" );

In my example today, the code looked like this:

      isnt( exception {
        my $invoice = gen_invoice();
        $invoice->abandon;
      }, undef,
            "Can't abandon invoice with no abandoned charges");
    });

I would never have noticed this error if I hadn't spontaneously decided to make the test stricter:

      like( exception {
        my $invoice = gen_invoice();
        $invoice->abandon;
      }, qr/Can't.*with no abandoned charges/,
            "Can't abandon invoice with no abandoned charges");
    });

So the rule of thumb is: even though the Test::Fatal manual suggests that you use isnt( exception { … }, undef, …), do not.

I mentioned this to Ricardo Signes, the author of the module, and he released a new version with revised documentation before I managed to get this blog post published.

[Other articles in category /prog/perl] permanent link