flypig.co.uk

Personal Blog

RSS feed Click the icon for the blog RSS feed.

Blog

5 most recent items

12 Jun 2018 : GetiPlay now actually plays, too #
For some time now I've been meaning to add a proper media player to GetiPlay. Why, you may well ask, bother to do this when Sailfish already has a perfectly good media player built in? Well, there are two reasons. First, for TV and radio programmes, one of the most important controls you can have is 'jump back a few seconds'. I need this when I'm watching something and get interrupted, or miss an important bit of the narrative, or whatever. It's such a useful button, it's worth writing a completely new media player for. Second, it's just far more seamless to have it all in one application.

So I finally got to adding it in. Here's the video player screen.
 

The QT framework really does make it easy to add media like this. It still took a good few days to code up of course, but it'd be a lot quicker for someone who knew what they were doing.

I'm also quite proud of the audio player, with the same, super-useful '10 seconds back' button. It also stays playing no matter where you move to in the app. Here it is, showing the controls at the bottom of the screen.
 


If you'd like to get these new features in your copy of GetiPlay, just download the latest version from OpenRepos, grab yourself the source from GitHub, or check out the GetiPlay page.
Comment
6 Jun 2018 : Huge GetiPlay release 0.3-1 #
I'm really pleased to release version 0.3-1 of GetiPlay, the unofficial interface for accessing BBC iPlayer stuff on Sailfish OS. This latest version is a huge update compared to previous releases, with a completely new tab-based UI and a lovely download queue so you can download multiple programmes without interruption.

Immediate info about every one of the thousands and thousands of TV and radio programmes is also now just a tap away.

Install yourself a copy from OpenRepos, grab the MIT-licensed source from GitHub or visit the GetiPlay page on this site.
 
Comment
30 May 2018 : My last teaching at Cambridge #
In 2016 I did my first teaching at Cambridge, and now I've just finished what is likely to be my last ever supervision at Cambridge. The course was Part IB security (the second course out of three the students study), and as with all of the Cambridge courses, the structure is lectures and small-group supervisions (tutorials with two or three students). This term I was teaching students from St John's and Peterhouse colleges. My experience this term was made particularly good by a set of diligent and engaged students. In large classes, if there are too many questions it can become overwhelming, but with small groups there's much more scope to cover questions more deeply. Security covers the breadth of topics, from those that are quite straightforward to those that are much more conceptual, and all of the students this year were on the ball both asking very sensible questions, and answering questions for each other. That makes for a much more enjoyable teaching experience (and if you're reading this: good job; I hope you enjoyed the supervisions too).

The Computer Lab, Cambridge

So, I didn't think I'd say this, but I'll miss this teaching. I've had the privilege to experience teaching across multiple HE institutions in the UK (Oxford, Birmingham, Liverpool John Moores, Cambridge). Living up to the high teaching standards of my colleagues and what the students' rightfully demand has been hard across all of these, but it's been great motivation and inspiration at the same time.

And, having grown up in a household of teachers, and after twenty years in the business, I think I've now seen enough of a spectrum to understand both the importance of teaching, but also its limitations. The attitude and aptitude of students plays such a crucial role in their learning. When you only get to interact with students in one small slice of their overall curriculum, there's a limit to how much you can affect this. That's not to downplay the importance of encouraging students in the right way, but rather to emphasise that teaching is a group activity. Students need good teachers across the board, and also need to bring an appetite.

It's great to teach good, enthusiastic students, and to see them grasp ideas as they're going along. But my ultimate conclusion is a rather selfish one: the best way to learn a practical subject is to do it; the best way to learn a theoretical subject is to teach it.
Comment
8 May 2018 : Finally addressing gitweb's gitosis #

My life seems to move in cycles. Back in February 2014 I set up git on my home server to host bare repositories for my personal dev projects. Up until then I'd been using Subversion on the same machine, and since most of my projects are personal this worked fine. Inevitably git became a sensible shift to make, so I set up gitolite for administration and with the Web front-end served up using gitweb.

Unfortunately, back then I couldn't get access control for the Web frond-end to synchronise with gitolite. It's been a thorn ever since, and left me avoiding my own server in favour of others. There were two parts to the reason for this. First the inability to host truly private projects wsa an issue. I often start projects, such as research papers where I host the LaTeX source on git, in private but then want to make them public later, for example when the paper has been published. Second, I was just unhappy that I couldn't set things up the way I wanted. It was important for me that the access control of the Web front end should be managed through the same config approach as used by gitolate for the git repositories themselves. Anything else just seemed backwards.

Well, I've suddenly found myself with a bit of time to look at it, and it turned out to be far easier than I'd realised. With a few global configuration changes and some edits to the repository config, it's now working as it should.

So, this isn't intended as a tutorial, but in case anyone else is suffering from the same mismatched configuration approach between gitweb and gitolite, here's a summary of how I found to set things up in a coherent way.

First, the gitweb configuration. On the server git is set up with its own user (called 'git') and with the repositories stored in the project root folder /srv/git/repositories. The gitweb configuration file is /etc/gitweb.conf. In this file, I had to add the following lines:

$projects_list = $projectroot . "/../projects.list";
$strict_export = 1;

The first tells gitweb that the Web interface should only list the project shown in the /srv/git/projects.list file. The second tells gitweb not to allow access to any sub-project that's not listed, even if someone knows (or can guess) the direct URL for accessing it.

However, that projects.list file has to be populated somehow. For this, I had to edit the gitolite config file at /srv/git/.gitolite.rc. This was already set up mostly correctly (probably with info I put in it four years ago), apart from the following line, which I had to add:

$GL_GITCONFIG_KEYS = "gitweb.owner|gitweb.description|gitweb.category";

This tells gitolite that any of these three keys can be validly added to the overall gitolote configuration files, for them to be propagated on to the repositories. The three values are used to display owner, description and category in the Web interface served by gitweb. However, even more importantly, any project that appears in the gitolite file with one of these variables, will also be added to the projects.list file automatically.

That's great, because it means I can now add entries to my gitolite.conf that look like this:

repo    myproject
        RW+     =   flypig
        R       =   @all
        R       =   gitweb
        config gitweb.owner = flypig
        config gitweb.description = "A project which is publicly accessible"
        config gitweb.category = "Public stuff"

When these changes are pushed to the gitolite-conf repository, hey-presto! gitolite will automatically add the project to the projects.list file, and the project will be accessible through the Web interface. Remove the last four lines, and the project will go dark, hidden from external access.

It's a small change, but I'm really pleased that it's finally working properly after such a long time and I can get back to developing stuff using tools set up just the way I like them.

Comment
2 Apr 2018 : Apple believes privacy is a fundamental human right #
The latest update from Apple brought with it a rather grand statement about privacy, stating that "Apple believes privacy is a fundamental human right". So do I, as it happens, so I'm glad Apple are making it known. However, we've heard similar claims from companies like Microsoft in the past (remember Scroogled?), so I'm always sceptical when large multi-national companies that run successful advertising platforms make grand claims about their customers privacy. Maybe it's even made me a bit cynical.

I much prefer to judge companies by their privacy policies than by their slick advertising statements, and to their credit Apple seem to be delivering on their privacy claims by putting their privacy poliies right in front of their users. Unfortunately they've done it in a way that's totally unusable. The fact that all of the privacy statements are in one place is great. The fact that they're in a tiny box that doesn't allow you to export -- or even select and copy out -- all of the text, is a usability clusterfuck. Please Apple, by all means put the policy front and centre of your user interface, but provide us with a nicely formatted text file or Web page to view it all on as well.

  The Apple privacy window

If you're concerned about your privacy like me, you'll want to read through this material in full. But worry not. I've gone to the trouble of selecting each individual piece of text and pasting into a markdown file that, I think, makes things much more readable. View the whole thing on Github, and if you notice any errors or changes, please submit a pull request and I'll try to keep it up-to-date.

In spite of my cynicism, I actually believe Apple, Microsoft, Google and especially Facebook take user privacy incredibly seriously. They know that the whole model is built on trust and that users will be offended if they abuse this trust. Everyone says that 'the user is the product' on platforms like Facebook, as if to suggest they don't really care about you, but all of these companies also know that their value is based on the satisfaction of their users. They have to provide a good service or users will go elsewhere. The value they get from your data is based on their ability to control your data, which means privacy is important to them.

Unfortunately, the motivation these tech companies have for protecting your data is also something that undermines your and my privacy as users of their services. Privacy is widely misunderstood as being about whether data is made public or not, whereas -- at least by one definition -- it's really about having control over who has access to information about you. By this argument a person who chooses to make all of their data public is enjoying privacy, as long as they've done it without coercion, and can change their stance later.

The tech companies have placed themselves as the means by which we maintain this control, but this means we have to trust them fully, and it also means we have to understand them fully. Privacy policies are one of the most important tools for getting this understanding. As users, we should assume that their privacy policies are the only constraint on what they'll really be willing to do with our data. Anything they write elsewhere is subordinate to the policy, and given the mixture of jurisdictions and wildly varying capabilities of oversight bodies around the world, I'd even put more weight on these polices than I would on local laws. In short, the policies are what matters, and they should be interpreted permissively.
 
Comment