«Founded ~2002 (wmi, wmii)
Approx. 5000 users world wide
~1000 dev@suckless.org subscriptions
~110 people in #suckless @ irc.oftc.net
Disclaimer: Expect harsh feedback/criticism»

A minimalistic approach to software development. These folks rock :D

Still, I have been thinking for long about an even more minimalistic approach to computing. What about reducing the computer architecture to the minimum for a given formally specified set of tasks? This approach might be called “SuckTheLeast”.

The ways to achieve a minimal architecture are necessarily through mathematical logic. For example, combinatory logic.

It goes beyond the “low-level” programming. What about “programming” the minimal “everyday” computing system/environment, given a formal specification? First the minimal architecture (processor, memory, storage, I/O devices), then the minimal “OS” (“kernel space”), then the minimal user environment (minimal applications). All in one single piece of “code”. Actually, it would be a finite model in some logic, which would require a proof of its consistency, so as to avoid security flaws[1].

Of course, most of us don’t have >USD 1M to spend in chip development. There is configurable circuitry, though. While it can be quite slow and limited, it has been improving.

An even further step would be applying SuckTheLeast in producing the minimal necessary hardware for a given minimal system.

The whole thing can be made public using a free license (or set of them): Creative Commons BY-SA, GPL3, ISC (the one preferred in the OpenBSD project), etc.

So, SuckTheLeast is one of the projects I’ll be working on in the next few decades.

As for hardware/software patents, a finite logic model and its formal proof is mathematics. You can’t patent mathematics. So F* you very much, (most) IP lawyers! [2]

[1] Flawless software is Daniel Bernstein‘s dream.

[2] I don’t like swearing, but most “Intellectual Property”-related pariah can’t deserve it enough.

«Written by a pioneer of mathematical logic, this comprehensive graduate-level text explores the constructive theory of first-order predicate calculus. It covers formal methods — including algorithms and epitheory — and offers a brief treatment of Markov’s approach to algorithms. It also explains elementary facts about lattices and similar algebraic systems. 1963 edition.»

There are the foundations of mathematics, which are to be found in mathematical logic. There are also the foundations of mathematical logic, which is a specialized part of the theory within mathematical logic (and is treated in this work).

P.S. The foundations of mathematical logic are NOT in philosophy. While there have been historical connections between mathematical logic and philosophical logic (and other parts of philosophy) before the 20th century, the only way real progress in mathematical logic (and the rest of mathematics and other sciences) has been reached has been by removing every single crust and stain of philosophy and ambiguity from the theory.

For many mathematical logicians, philosophical aspects about mathematical logic remain mostly for leisurely chit-chat, while drinking coffee or tea with other scholars in a logic congress/meeting, or for some entertainment reading. Not for serious research ;-)

For instance, a child is normally told that staying under the rain is “bad”, as she/he might get “ill”. If the child doesn’t believe it and gets ill after being under the rain, she/he then accepts the advice. However, it’s not very common that both a child and the parent(s) think about what is actually “wrong” in staying under the rain, and under what circumstances it leads to being ill. There’s also the consideration whether being ill is_ that_ “bad”.

In this case, there are biological aspects like the efficiency of the immunological system in “developing defenses” against possible viruses, which might be more effective in attacking the body when it’s cold and wet. There is also the aspect of the immunological system “developing defenses” for future infections (of the same virus strain) while being under attack of an infection.

While these aspects are anything but obvious, and our current understanding about them has only been attained after decades of scientific research, the first step into being aware of the existing research results (and even doing further research) is to question the validity of those “good”/”bad” criteria. Contrary to a widespread fallacy, “questioning” doesn’t mean “outright denying”.

Searching and reading existing scientific literature (and learning the necessary stuff to understand it), even when you don’t begin your own research, is a quite more fulfilling activity (even productive, as you can teach other people about what you find out) than emotional troubles. Science can even help you solve some of the causes of those troubles.

Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Box 4
Patent and Trademark Office
Washington, DC 20231

Dear Commissioner:

Along with many other computer scientists, I would like to ask you to reconsider the current policy of giving patents for computational processes. I find a considerable anxiety throughout the community of practicing computer scientists that decisions by the patent courts and the Patent and Trademark Office are making life much more difficult for programmers.

In the period 1945-1980, it was generally believed that patent law did not pertain to software. However, it now appears that some people have received patents for algorithms of practical importance–e.g., Lempel-Ziv compression and RSA public key encryption–and are now legally preventing other programmers from using these algorithms.

This is a serious change from the previous policy under which the computer revolution became possible, and I fear this change will be harmful for society. It certainly would have had a profoundly negative effect on my own work: For example, I developed software called TeX that is now used to produce more than 90% of all books and journals in mathematics and physics and to produce hundreds of thousands of technical reports in all scientific disciplines. If software patents had been commonplace in 1980, I would not have been able to create such a system, nor would I probably have ever thought of doing it, nor can I imagine anyone else doing so.

I am told that the courts are trying to make a distinction between mathematical algorithms and nonmathematical algorithms. To a computer scientist, this makes no sense, because every algorithm is as mathematical as anything could be. An algorithm is an abstract concept unrelated to physical laws of the universe.

Nor is it possible to distinguish between “numerical” and “nonnumerical” algorithms, as if numbers were somehow different from other kinds of precise information. All data are numbers, and all numbers are data. Mathematicians work much more with symbolic entities than with numbers.

Therefore the idea of passing laws that say some kinds of algorithms belong to mathematics and some do not strikes me as absurd as the 19th century attempts of the Indiana legislature to pass a law that the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter is exactly 3, not approximately 3.1416. It’s like the medieval church ruling that the sun revolves about the earth. Man-made laws can be significantly helpful but not when they contradict fundamental truths.

Congress wisely decided long ago that mathematical things cannot be patented. Surely nobody could apply mathematics if it were necessary to pay a license fee whenever the theorem of Pythagoras is employed. The basic algorithmic ideas that people are now rushing to patent are so fundamental, the result threatens to be like what would happen if we allowed authors to have patents on individual words and concepts. Novelists or journalists would be unable to write stories unless their publishers had permission from the owners of the words. Algorithms are exactly as basic to software as words are to writers, because they are the fundamental building blocks needed to make interesting products. What would happen if individual lawyers could patent their methods of defense, or if Supreme Court justices could patent their precedents? I realize that the patent courts try their best to serve society when they formulate patent law. The Patent Office has fulfilled this mission admirably with respect to aspects of technology that involve concrete laws of physics rather than abstract laws of thought. I myself have a few patents on hardware devices. But I strongly believe that the recent trend to patenting algorithms is of benefit only to a very small number of attorneys and inventors, while it is seriously harmful to the vast majority of people who want to do useful things with computers.

When I think of the computer programs I require daily to get my own work done, I cannot help but realize that none of them would exist today if software patents had been prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s. Changing the rules now will have the effect of freezing progress at essentially its current level. If present trends continue, the only recourse available to the majority of America’s brilliant software developers will be to give up software or to emigrate. The U.S.A. will soon lose its dominant position.

Please do what you can to reverse this alarming trend. There are far better ways to protect the intellectual property rights of software developers than to take away their right to use fundamental building blocks.

Sincerely,
Donald E. Knuth
Professor Emeritus

Source: http://progfree.org/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt

Z = (A, B, C, D)

A: a logic system/set of rules of inference
B: a model of a set theory
C: model/structure of the object
D: proof of the validity of the model in the logic system using the model of the set theory

That is, using classical logic and ZFC (the set theory normally used in Math), an object is nothing more than its formal definition and the proof of its existence (the proof of its construction).

While this observation is absurdly basic, it helps to settle and organize ideas about where I’m heading.

My original quest was to formalize a computer architecture (say, x86). As I have been focusing on the underlying mathematic logic instead of just the computational aspects, I realized it could be deeply generalized to any computational object/process/method/algorithm/protocol/etc..

Thus, a computational object is nothing more than its formal definition and the proof of how it can be exactly constructed, step by step.

This is like an even more generalized Curry-Howard correspondence, inasmuch you can use whatever inference system you like and whatever set theoretical model you want. An aspect to consider is whether your object, under those conditions, makes sense ;-)

There is an apparent problem regarding composite (mathematical) objects, but doesn’t have to be so.

For instance, a vector space over a field requires having the definition of associativity, a field, etc. Under this definition of an object, however, the vector space would be the axioms for a vector space and the axioms for every object it needs to be defined, until getting to the axioms of the set theory and logic system used.

That is a lot of information to store for every object, were this implemented in a real computing system. However, space can be saved by means of several methods (pointers, cache memory, etc.) ;D

Plenty of work to do. But, at least, I got something :D

[1] It’s quite plausible that this has already been done by someone somewhere. Whatever, I’ll go on.

Dearth: lack/scarcity
Suffixation: adding a suffix to a word
Asuffixation: not adding a suffix to a word

That is, you are not precisely free from the Big Money. For instance, you are actually expected to pursue Big Money (or its lifestyle), which is another way to say you are not precisely free to choose not to pursue it. That does not mean you must pursue it. It means that you might have a hard time if choosing not to do so.

L-systems on PGF/TikZ. Trees (and other figures)! :D

For instance, the fractal plant is drawn like this:

...
\pgfdeclarelindenmayersystem{Fractal plant}{
\rule{X -> F-[[X]+X]+F[+FX]-X}
\rule{F -> FF}}
...
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [green!50!black, rotate=90]
[l-system={Fractal plant, axiom=X, order=6, step=2pt, angle=25}]
lindenmayer system;
\end{tikzpicture}


Just by changing some parameters and the rewriting rules, you get more complex designs.

It is also natural to implement L-systems on PostScript. In the end, PGF/TikZ generates PostScript code. However, PSTricks can perform more advanced drawing in the low-level (i.e., PostScript).

It has to do with what people feel more comfortable with. The problem is that something a person feels comfortable with is just the most annoying thing for someone else.

However, the playfield isn’t balanced at all. As most of the time in politics, money normally has the last word. That’s one reason why decisions that don’t benefit most people happen.

Each .el file is a complete program, written in Emacs Lisp. Instead of dealing with GUIs, etc., they just use a single underlying user interface: that one of GNU Emacs.

It might take a while to learn how to use Emacs and its modes, but it’s absolutely worth :D

P.S. This is exactly what I wanted since several years: an homogeneous, minimalistic, dynamically configurable and programmable, text-based computing environment (interface).

Back then, I knew Emacs (and Emacs Lisp) were powerful, but not that powerful.

Of course, if you need hardcore performance, you better use a programming language like C (also utterly powerful). As for interacting with that, you can develop an Emacs mode :D

Comprehensive judicial reforms are an imperative in many countries. Right now.

For instance, how come a filesharer gets more time in jail than many murderers?

How come the US is the only developed country outside the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice?

How come intersex persons (read Maya Posch’s life story) are legally considered “non-people” in many countries?

How come government financial regulators can take positions in those institutions they are supposed to regulate?

There is a concept called “Rule of Law”, which states that the (approved) laws of a country are those that, in the end, “govern” (whereas politicians are supposed to be just “agents” or “channels” for making that ruling real).

That is, decisions in all powers are supposed to be subordinated to the existing laws, and are considered invalid when they contradict them.

Since, in the end, laws are either true, false, “true and false” (depending of external conditions), or undecidable, (mathematical) logicians are of utmost importance.

That is, a case could be handled like a problem in logic, not as a set of (mostly) pointless discussions where money and irrational traditions have the last word :(

if you feel happy with it, you can think of the existence of your supposed “God” as if it were “not provable“[1] in mathematical logic, or “undecidable“[2] in theoretical computer science. You can’t tell whether it exists or not, as there isn’t any way to do that. The answer to the question would be some dummy, null void (neither “yes” nor “no”) we just can’t do a frigging thing about.

Now, get to work with what we can do something about. Begin by engaging in some natural science: Math, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Geology, etc.

Regards.

were «we’re your “you’re”» its “it’s”…

Do you notice the difference?

Regards.

The GNU Operating System

«The primary and continuing goal of GNU is to offer a Unix-compatible system that would be 100% free software. Not 95% free, not 99.5%, but 100%. The name of the system, GNU, is a recursive acronym meaning GNU’s Not Unix—a way of paying tribute to the technical ideas of Unix, while at the same time saying that GNU is something different. Technically, GNU is like Unix. But unlike Unix, GNU gives its users freedom.»

Some of you might say: “This is Commie propaganda!” Well, free software projects (which don’t have anything to do with communism/socialism) have been holding the Web together for years.

Most Web servers run GNU/Linux. That is, the Linux kernel (also free software, and one of the most complex software projects ever done) using essential GNU programs/utilities, and non-GNU (but still free software) projects (Apache HTTP server, PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby, etc.)

Most of the utilities you will ever need. Just read the documentation of those you will use. Combine them if necessary.

One program’s output is another program’s input.

P.S. You’re using a UNIX-derivative OS like GNU/Linux, Mac OS, or *BSD, right?

I didn’t think about loans at all, as I was taught that debts were a nasty thing to have. “If owing a $10000 debt is burdensome enough, how much horrible might a debt worth millions of dollars be?”, I thought back then (in Costa Rican colones, to the 1992 exchange rate (and in Spanish)).

I eventually learned that “economics” comes from Ancient Greek οἰκονομία (“oikonomia”), where “οἶκος” (“oikos”) means “house” and “νόμος” (“nomos”) means “law”. It can be interpreted as the “art of taking care of your house/dwelling/living”. It did make sense: you are supposed to manage money in a larger setup (a government, a company, etc.) as if it were your money.

Where did governments (not only Costa Rica’s) lose track of such basic ideas a child (in a developing country) could understand?

Tweak the code and process until you feel comfortable with the (PDF) result. And please share afterwards!

LaTeXing is one way to preserve texts for future generations. Reminds me of the method used in “Fahrenheit 451“.

[1] “No part of this publication may be reproduced…” Yeah, whatever, dude! It’s OK to copy and distribute for fair use!

“The Masked Letter“

An example of steganography: sending hidden messages in plain text.

Another way would be to use a commonly accessible text as base (Shakespeare’s “Othello”, the US Constitution, etc.) and play on the “mask” required to see the hidden message[1]. Finding the hidden message might require permuting letters, rewriting letter strings in connection to some other commonly accessible text, etc.

For instance, a text like “Abolish the Army”[2] could, using the right method, actually be interpreted like “Send troops to Qom. Attack at 2200.”[3]

[1] For conspiracy theorist: I’m not saying “Let’s find the secret left by Shakespeare, etc.” Sorry to disappoint you.

[2] Seriously, an army is quite much a waste of money. We are supposed to be civilized people, ain’t we? (No, no steganography here.)

[3] Of course, US Army instructions during the Iran invasion, which will (almost) inevitably occur within some few months/years, might be more complex than that.

you might have noticed one way to create jobs (lots of them) in the US is to “insource” part of (electronics) industry (i.e., do the reverse process of outsourcing). Not just technical jobs, but a whole range.

Devices and other products manufactured in the US wouldn’t be that expensive, as it would be a matter of those corporations to reduce their way-much-higher-than-minimal-profit to a still-profitable profit.

Automation would replace most of the handwork that is done in outsourcing. Its engineering, optimization, maintenance, and personnel management is a whole industry that requires many jobs. It has an initial high production cost, but eventually becomes pinch-low.

Thus, it’s up to the managers and the boards of directors to make their choice. You can help “guiding” them.

Regards,
a non-US citizen, non-US resident that just happens to care.

G: How do you move from “algebra” to “allergy”, letter-wise?

F: That’s easy. You plug in “l-e-r” between “l” and “g”, then replace “e-b-r-a” with “y”.

G: You just used algebra. More precisely, you used a mathematical method called “string rewriting system“, which, in the end, can be described using the algebraic concept of “monoid“.

F: Noooooo!

G: See? You just cannot escape algebra! Bwahahaha!