When will we get secure desktop OSes?


PC/Mac using people. We have a problem. That problem is our machines are not remotely secure. 10yrs ago I used to not really worry about it but I feel like the time as come that if something isn't done soon we're all going to lose our data and have our bank accounts stolen etc...

Maybe this comes from working on Chrome where security is taken seriously. That's not to say it's not serious in other places but rather working on Chrome all the ways in which a program can do bad things and how to stop them comes up. Of course a browser runs "untrusted code" by which they mean, unless you shut off JavaScript, every page you visit gets to run code on your machine via JavaScript and/or WebAssembly.

That's awesome IMO. It gives us things like Google Maps which is amazing and things like Google.com/flights which gives instant and live results but it also means browsers have to be vigilant and have to consider how APIs are designed so that a random site's code can't do bad things to your computer.

Sure, some people will read this and rant that browser's shouldn't run code in the first place. I disagree. I think Google Maps is far better with JavaScript than without. But, that's beside the point.


The disinction is supposed to be that code in the browser could come from anywhere. The ads on your favorite sites include code to track you. The site itself has code to do whatever (get the latest posts live or send you a message notification). You didn't explicitly say "I trust this code" so it's "untrusted".

That is supposed to be in contrast to apps you install on your computer. The act of choosing to install a native app is implicitly saying "I trust this app".

That is a problem. You shouldn't trust apps. You should haven't to trust apps any more than you should have to trust webpages. Apps can be just as evil as a webpage. In fact apps can be more evil because at the moment they aren't sandboxed on Mac or Windows or Linux so they can do far more damage than a webpage.

An app can, read your entire hard drive or at least all the data in your user folder which is probably where all your important data is anywhere. That means it can look at all your photos, all your movies, read though all your files including whatever finanical files you've saved on your computer. If you're a geek and you have private SSH keys stored in ~/.ssh all those keys can be read by any software you install.

A native app can constantly read your clipboard even when it's not the front app and send that to some server on the net. A native app can turn on your camera or your mic without asking. It can scan your network for other devices, some of which might have known exploits.

And of course a large percentage of apps, especially on Windows but even on Mac, ask for admin perission to install which means they can pretty much do anything they want. Install a key logger and watch all your keys. Install a screen reader and download images of your desktop at anytime. They can look at which apps you're running an report that back to their respective companies. They can report the file names of which videos you're watching. They can monitor your network to see which sites you're accessing, what files you're downloading.


The reason it's this way is basically historical. Before all machines were connected to the internet it just never crossed anyone's mind that these things might be problems. We had say 20-30yrs like that where it was just assumed installed apps were trustworthy. So, we have the issue that if Windows and MacOS and Linux were to switch overnight to prevent apps from doing these things all old software would break. Because of that it's hard to push sandboxing apps as the default.

Both Apple and Microsoft put a step forward on this with their respective app stores. Apps installed from the Mac App Store or the Windows App Store run somewhat sandboxed. Microsoft recently removed that sandbox requirement though as the are shipping their Ubuntu integeration on the Windows App Store and it has access to everything.

In general, I don't think any app should have perminent permission to access your mic or your camera. Even Facetime should be asking for permission each and every time. It wouldn't be that bad of a UX. You'd make a call and the OS would prompt "Facetime would like to use the camera Y/N" and your call would be made.

The problem is once you give an app perission then you never know when it's turning on the mic or the camera. For mobile this might be slightly less of an issue since, at least on iOS, only one app runs at a time so you know some background app can't be using the mic (AFAIK). For desktop that's not true so once you've given an app permission to use the camera you really never know when it will do so. Of course on desktop right now there is no camera permission even if sandboxed. You gave it permission just by the act of installing it. You can see MacOS doesn't even have the option to prevent an app from accessing the mic or the camera.

And, this isn't just an issue of trusting each company. You might trust Slack and install their Slack app. Or you might trust Adobe and install Photoshop but those companies are using 100s of 3rd party libraies. You're really trusting 1000s of people for each piece of software you install. Your trusting all 1000+ people are not trying to do anything bad. That all 1000+ people, every disgruntled employee, every schemey person in the chain, didn't decide to try to sneak in some backdoor.

And, even if they aren't intentionally doing something bad there are still bugs. You install some game like Call of Duty. That game sends data between players. Turns out because of a bug another player can hack the networking on their computer to send your computer bad data through the game. They can then own your machine, read all your data, use your camera, mic, etc, hack your router, infect other machines on your network.

This kind of bug is potentially true of any app that exchanges data between users. Your chat app (slack, irc), your email app, your online games, your social netorking apps (facebook, line, whatsapp), etc... You're trusting there are no bugs. Right now there's an extremely popular app framework called Electron. Lots of famous and not so famous apps use it. And yet It's UNSECURE BY DEFAULT. I'd guess if you're using an app based on Electron and that app communicates with a server then odds are > 50% it's insecure. The app itself might be hard coded to only ever talk to the app company's servers which means some random hacker can't use it to pown your machine easily (though maybe they can when you're on their fake wifi). But, unless all the security adivce is followed then any disgruntaled employee or evil manager could use the path between the company and your computer to use the insecurities to do whatever they want to your machine.

Heck, even without frameworks like Electron, apps auto update and each update could add code to do bad things to your machine. The nice people that started the app might have been replaced with less nice people. The company that made the app might have decided they wanted to do more spying on your machine for marketing purposes so your software that used to be trustworth no longer is.

Sandboxings apps solves, or at least is a step to solving all of those issues. With a good sandbox an app can't read the data or files of other apps (without your permission). With a good sandbox an app can't access the mic or camera. With a good sandbox even if the app has bugs that let other users hack your app they can only affect that app and it's data, not your entire computer and all data. A really good sandbox could even prevent scanning your local network.

Steam recently had an exploit anyone could have used to hack your machine. Sure they fixed it but that's not the lesson that should have been learned. The lesson should have been that Steam should never have been in a position to exploit your entire machine. It should be running in a sandbox!

People, in particular software developers, rebel at the idea of sandboxing their software. This is especially frustrating because they should be able to see the dangers. Dev software itself has this issue. Many devs install software almost daily. They download software libraries as packages or as git repositories and trust those libraires are not owning their machines or spying on them. Seriously, typing npm install pick-your-favorite-lib is like literally trusting 100s if not 1000s of people you've never met not to trash your computer and or steal your data. Being told to type apt get some-package and or brew install package should not be opening your data to getting stolen. There needs to be a better way to sandbox even command line apps.

One way to solve this is to create a new VM for every project but at the moment that's too burdensome so that almost no one does it. Microsoft is apparently adding a feature to do this but it doesn't sound like a serious solution. It's only for temporarily running some software. It's not for putting each app in its own sandbox.

Another solution is to run a more sandboxed os like Qubes OS. Unfortunately the apps people want to run are generally not availabe on Qubes so that isn't really a solution. Apple and Micrsoft are really the two companies that need to lead the fix for this.

Unfortunately their current solutions so far are broken. First off their new sandboxes are optional. You can stlll install software that runs outside the sandbox and because of that that's still the norm to install un-sandboxed software. Probably 95% of all the software installed in both OSes runs un-sandboxed. All games on steam and pretty much all brand name apps run unsandboxed.

Secondly their desktop sandboxes are leaky. See the fact that the camera and mic are not sandboxed yet.

And, finally and most important is they've conflated sandboxing with their store. Getting apps from an offical store should be separated from sandboxing apps. Any app, regardless of how it's installed should be subject to sandboxing restrictions by default. You shouldn't have to only get store apps to be sandboxed. The OS should be designed to be safe by default.

I'm sure you can think of an exception, some software that can't function in a sandbox and that's mostly fine but that should be the exception and Apple and Microsoft and users at large should shame and boycott any software that tries to avoid sandboxing. This includes companies like Adobe that are known for hacking your OS at a deep level to spy on you.

I'm not holding my breath and I'm sure I'll get some rants about sandboxing in the comments. I've even seen arguments that sandboxing isn't a solution. To that argument I'd argue back that if you believe sandboxing is not a solution then you should be fine to run your browser with sandboxing off and you should be fine running all software as root/admin. If you aren't willing to that then you do actually believe sandboxing has an important role to play in protecting your computer.

At some point I expect the exploits to multiply like crazy. I'll bet the majority of multi player games have exploits. I'll bet lots of apps that have semi constant networking have exploits. I'll bet that more and more desktop apps will be caught spying on you in one way or another. And I'll bet this will get worse and worse over the years until it becomes clear we need sandboxes. I think iOS and Android have already shown how important they are. Desktop PCs are no different.

Let's hope Microsoft and Apple make better sandboxes. Let's also hope they separate them from their stores and from their certification systems. Sandboxes should be the default.


Thoughts on Magic Ink


If you've never read a Bret Victor paper or watched a Bret Victor presentation you're missing out. For paper's I'd recommend starting with Learnable Programming.

Recently via some random chain of events I stumbled on the Future of Coding podcast. The theme I guess could be summed up as "we're doing it wrong!". "It" being programming computers. I don't know if it's true that we're doing it wrong but it's definitely fun to think about.

In a couple of the podcasts the Bret Victor paper, Magic Ink, was brought up. I hadn't read it yet so I checked it out.

It's inspiring as usual for Bret Victor. I'm not sure if I can do a good job of summarizing it but my take away was that with only a little extra thought it becomes clear that lots of software could have far better user experiences.

Bret claims that interface designers should consider themselves graphic designers first and foremost and that a graphic designer's skill is supposed to be to make images and make it easy to understand and compare information as easily and quickly as possible. Many software applications have given little to no thought about what the user actually wants to accomplish, what data they need to see and how to present it for the app to be useful to them and how most apps make it tedious to get what the user really wants out of them and that maybe with a little more thought much of that could be fixed. I really liked that idea and many of the examples were very compelling.

The paper was written in or around 2005 so before nearly everyone had a PDA in their pocket like they do now. Of course lots of people did have PDAs on them in 2005 but internet access over cellular was still rare and expensive.

In any case I'm curious about some of the things that seem to have changed in the 13 years since that paper was posted.

I think probably the biggest example of something that sounded like a good idea at the time and maybe still is but it's probably not as clear.... Much software could be better if it took context into account. That much is somewhat obvious. One example given might be what a map like Google Maps shows you when you open it. If it can know your location it should probably start with a map of where you currently are. If you click the search bar maybe it should try to guess where you're most likely to want to go as possible suggestions like if it's 8am on a weekday maybe it would suggest your work or if it's 6pm on a weekday maybe it should suggest your home. There was a time when maps didn't have GPS data so they couldn't start by showing you where you are. I'm not sure even Google Maps looks at your location and the time of day and what day of the week to decide what options to show you when you click search.

Bret went on to suggest that if all apps communicated with each other then let's say you just read an email about a business trip you need to take. If you opened your maps app now and the email app and the maps app could talk to each other then there should be a way for the map app to guess that maybe what you want to look at right now is the location of the business trip.

Not sure that's a good suggestion BUT, in 2018 the idea that multiple apps would all share their data sounds super scary because we know now that every app would record everything, send it to their servers, share it with their various partners, most of them advertizing partners and we'd all have profiles built on us. Of course we have that today but not to the level that the paper was hoping to see in the future of 2005.

I'm really curious if Mr. Victor still sees that world as a possible future or if he's settled that it's impossible to do without too many privacy issues or if he's got ideas for solutions.

Another example of something that seems to have changed, the paper suggests using context to help searches. I wish Google did this (or did it better). One example in the paper is if you search for "Blender", "3DSMax", "Modo", and then search for "Maya" it should be abundantly clear that you mean "Maya" the 3D Software Application by Autodesk and not "Maya" the civilization from Central America.

I find these context mistakes infuriating, especially when I know the application has the data it needs. Sometime in 2012, while in Tokyo, I searched for "pizza" on Google Maps and it ended up showing me some place in Texas. Given it knew my GPS and even if it didn't know it at the moment it new my previous searches it seems really stupid to somehow think I was searching for anything in Texas without explicitly typing "Texas" in my search. Even typing "Texas" in my search doesn't seem like it should show me Texas USA if I'm in Tokyo as I could be looking for a store called "Texas" or a restaurant serving "Texas BBQ" or "Texas style Mexican food". It seems like it should require some pretty specific extra context for it to ever give me any results from the state of Texas if it knows I'm currently in Tokyo.

In any case though, of the problems I have with context based interfaces is inconsistency. In Google search maybe it's not so bad to get different results each time. Things change, there's new info that matches the search. But, there are time when I feel like consistency trumps context. I'm trying to think of a good example but until then I guess the way I'd explain it is I have muscle memory. Click this option, press down 3 times, press enter to select. Or click here to make a new fob, then click 2 inches to the right to set the fob's options. If a context aware app made it so my muscle memory failed often I think it would drive me nuts.

Not quite the same but an example in the paper is typing a zip code and having the app start zooming as digits are entered. Type a "9" and we know it's the west coast, followed by a "4" brings us to the SF Bay Area, followed by a "5" brings us to the Easy Bay.

That sounds great except ... is it? Maybe it's a different case but Google tried live search results. As you'd type each letter Google would change the results live on the page. Google since got rid of that feature. I'd be curious to know why. The claim is that it wasn't good for mobile so why not make it consistent. I'm not sure I buy that claim as all kinds of things are different on mobile. For one I don't have a mouse with 1 or 2 buttons that can hover over things and I have a tiny display.

In any case though I absolutely loathed the old "show them as you type instant search results". Let's make it clear, I'm not talking about the search suggestions that appear just below the search input area. I'm talking that Google used to update the entire page as I typed. The problem for me is I'm often referencing things on the page as I type. With Google making them disappear I couldn't reference them and it actually made this harder for me.

Given that I wondered if similar issues would happen with things suggested in the paper related to instantly showing new info as the user starts entering their data. I think I'm pretty glad Google Maps doesn't jump around as I type but waits for me to select something. I'm curious if others have noticed that too that trying to be too responsive can actually be annoying and or counter productive.

The last potion of the paper was about his award winning Bart app that ran as an accessory on MacOS. He went over in detail all the design decisions and it was certainly a beautiful app with lots of thought and care put into the design.

My personal reaction though was not quite as awe struck and it made me wonder if "Bart" wasn't also the product of a personal bubble.

The first thing that stuck out was it had this semi-fancy interface for choosing a destination in which it shows a map of the entire Bart system. The Bart system is not really that big. There are basically 5 lines, they all come out of Oakland so it's an extremely simple system. You could hover your mouse down the tracks to choose any station.

Compare to Tokyo where I live there are something like 40 lines and 2000 stations. Most of the line cross other lines, sometimes multiple times zig zagging here and there. Such a UI would arguably never work here.

But, thinking about it more at almost seemed like Mr. Victor missed is own advice. The paper points out that often software isn't helping the user do what they actually want to do and the Bart app is a perfect example of exactly that. No one is trying to get from one Bart station to another. They are actually trying to get from one place to another neither of which is a Bart station!

If I'm at the north side of Lake Merritt in Oakland and I want to go to the Metreon in San Francisco my goal is not to "take the Bart". It's to get from where I am to where I want to be. That might be bus, Uber, Lyft, Ferry, Bart, maybe even some carpool service.

That idea came up because the paper mentioned showing only one route and that clearly wouldn't work in Tokyo where there are often multiple routes. There's the fastest route which could depend on the time of day. There's the route that gets you to your destination soonest which might be different. In other words, if you leave right now one route might get you there 50 minutes from now. Another route might get you there 60 minutes from now but you leave 15 minutes later so only 45 minutes travel time. Yet another route might require less transfers, less walking either to the bus stop or train station or at transfer area. One route might take the bus, another a train. One route might be cheaper via more trips on the same company's lines instead of switching companies. There are at least 10 different train/subway/lightrail companies in Tokyo.

From my own apartment downtown I'm only about a 2-3 minute walk to a bus stop but when I ask how to get somewhere, depending on where it is it might be best for me to walk to one of the 5 stations within a 25 minute walk. If it's 5am and I'm planning to go to the beach there is no bus running so I need to walk 15 minutes to a major station where as at 7am its much faster to catch the bus to that station.

As another example from Shibuya to Azabujuban there are at least 4 routes.

Why would I pick one over the other? Well, Ginza line and Hanzomon Line run parallel but their platforms in Shibuya are 5-6 minute walk apart. If I'm nearer one or the other I'd pick the one I'm nearer. Hanzomon Line also skips one station so it might be faster. I have a similar dilemma at my destination as the Oedo platform and Namboku platforms are also 5-6 minutes apart so I might want to take into account my final destination. Another concern would be if I have a commuter pass then one of those routes might be free or 1/2 free. Yet another price consideration is even if I don't have a pass the bus is the cheapest option as it's one bus where as the 3 other routes each use two diferent train companies. The bus takes 25 minutes where as the train routes only take 12-15 minutes but, the bus starts at Shibuya so I'm almost guaranteed to have a seat. If I have the time I might perfer a comfortable seated ride in the bus vs standing on the train and having the 2-3 minute transfer walks. Yet another consideration would be if I'm carrying something heavy like if I just bought something maybe I'd prefer a cab/uber/lyft.

This all gets even worse if my destination is between stations. For example from my house to Enoshima, an island a little over an hour a away, I can go

Considerations? The last one is cheaper by $3. ($9 vs $12). The monorail might be more scenic. On the Shonan-Shinjuku line I can pay an extra $9 and get a fancy comfortable airplane like seat for 40 minutes of my trip.

The Bart app's one route design struck a cord knowning it wouldn't work in Tokyo which after a little thought made it clear it wasn't following its own suggestion and solving the actual user's problem of getting from A to B where A and B are not "Bart Stations".

In any case the paper is still amazing and thought provoking and you should totally read it and take away the bigger message. I'd love to hear your thoughts.


OffscreenCanvas and Commit


Chrome is planning to ship OffscreenCanvas.

I know lots of devs that have been wanting that feature for ages so it's exciting to see it finally here. What is OffscreenCanvas? It's basically the ability to draw to a canvas from a web worker.

Drawing a complex scene often takes lots of CPU power. By being able to move all those calculations to a web worker we can make sure the main thread, the one reading the keyboard, responding to the mouse, etc... has all the power it needs to stay responsive.

There was debate for a long time about how it should be done. Ian Hickson wrote one idea orginally and with zero review stuck it in the spec. MDN even documented it though it was never implemented by anyone. I wrote another proposal in around 2012 that pointed out the issues with the one in the spec and suggested another solution. That was never implemented either though it was referenced from time to time as a reminder of some of the issues invovled.

In any case the current solution that chrome appears about to ship is that WebGL and Canvas2D mostly work in workers exactly the same as they do outside if workers. There's a small amount of code you need to write to transfer control of a canvas to some object that will exist inside the worker. The worker then creates a WebGL context or a 2D context and renders just like it would if it was in the main page. Results show up automatically just like they do on the main page. In other words, for those familar with graphics programming, there is no explict present or swapBuffers call. The moment you call one of the rendering functions in the respective APIs the browser "queues a task to do the present/swap" when your event exits.

This is great as it's the path of least surprise. No crazy new changes are needed to your code.

Even better they added requestAnimationFrame to workers so a worker can effectively just do a standard render loop

function render(time) {

So far so good.

But, ... they are also considering adding something else which is an explicit present/swapbuffers function called commit. Normal JavaScript apps would likely not use this API. Rather it's an API for WebAssembly ports of native games.

The issue they are trying to solve is that most native games run in what's called a "spinloop". They have code like this

   while(!userWantsToExit) {

They never pause and never stop rendering they just run as fast as they can in a loop. By adding commit they feel they can better support native ports.

I see several problems with this approach and I hope I've convinced them to put the brakes and do a little more testing before releasing this API.

You can NOT use any other Web APIs with this model!

For those that don't know how JavaScript works it works on an event model. You provide functions to be called when certain events happen. Events include things like key pressed, mouse clicked, button clicked, slider moved, image downloaded, websocket message received, etc..

When one of these events arrives the browser calls the JavaScript function you assigned to that event. Your JavaScrpt runs AND THE BROWSER IS FROZEN until your JavaScript exits. Once your JavaScript exits the browser will run any other events on the list of events waiting to be run.

A spinloop like the one enabled by commit means your JavaScript never exits so you'll never process any other events. In other words, the worker rendering with a commit spinloop CAN NOT USE ANY OTHER WEB APIs. It can not receive messages from the main page. It can not download images. It can not read files or request data from a server. It can not use a websocket.

WOW! An api that removes the ability to use all other APIs!?!?!

When I asked about it I was told the solution is to use SharedArrayBuffers. SharedArrayBuffers are a way for workers and the main thread to share a chunk of memory with each other. They can all read and write from it and so they can use shared array buffers to commicate with each other.

Ok, I guess that works. It sounds like a ton of work. For example there is no way to get the raw data from an image in the current Web APIs. You can download images and use them in Canvas 2D and WebGL but as we've just pointed out you can't use those APIs in a worker using commit. Because you can't get the raw data you also can't download those imaegs in another worker or the main thread and pass them via sharedmemorybuffers into the render/commit worker. Soooo, you're left to write your own image decoders throwing away a bunch of the web API again. This is one reason why webassembly apps are so bloated is they include their own versions of image loading libraries even though libraries already exist in the browser.

I suppose that's a minor thing but that's not the end of it.

The next issue is what happens when your page that has worker that's using commit is not the front tab. This is a problem too.

With a normal requestAnimationFrame loop the only thing that happens is the browser stops sending animation frame events. It's still fully able to deliever other events. Events for fetching json, events for loading images, events loading other data. Your program can keep responding.

With commit it was suggested they'd just block commit forever until the tab is put in the front again. The problem then is that you've got the main page and or workers still receiving mesages but when they try to communicate those messages to the rendering worker that worker never responds. It's frozen. This will be a HUGE source of race bugs. Developers think their code works only to find it fails is subtle and hard to reproduce ways depending on when the user switches tabs. Not good.

Okay, so they suggested maybe they can throttle commit. They'll call it just once a second for example. Unfortunately we can show that's not a solution. Many GPU pages (and many even non-GPU pages) can be really slow. Here's a page that's really slow at least on my machine. When it's the front tab I can barely type. I'm glad that page exists as it's super educational so I think pages like that should exist. If I make some other tab the front tab my machine is back to normal and responsive. Now imagine if that page used commit and commit was only throttled. Imagine it was called once per second. The experience would be horrible and my machine would still seem unusable as once a second my machine would hiccup as it processes that graphics page offscreen. So no, throttling is not a viable solution. whatever solution happens must stop the rendering period.

So what solutions are their?

Well why do we need commit at all?

The reason some people think we need commit is because they want to support native ports to webassembly. A typical spinloop based C/C++ program might have some code like this

void main() {
  KeyboardSystem* keySys = new KeyboardSystem();
  GraphicsSyatem* gfxSys = new GraphicsSystem();
  DataSystem* dataSys = new DataSystem();

  GameData* gameData = dataSys.loadData();

  bool done = false;
  while(!done) {
    done = keySys.checkKeyboard();


The problem they see is that this code can't work in the browser's current system. Like I mentioned above the browser only calls your code via events. Your code needs to exit so that the browser can then process the next event. The code above never exits. If it does exit then keySys, gfxSys, dataSys and gameData would all be cleaned up which is not what we want.

Of course programmers can refactor their code so this isn't a problem but the people pushing for the commit are trying to to make it so those developers don't have to change their code and things will just work.

Here comes a place where we disagree. First, the amount of work to refactor that code is small. Of course the example above is small but I suspect even large native code bases would not take that much work to refactor to work with events. You'd need a few globals or singletons but otherwise you just split up your code

static KeyboardSystem* keySys;
static GraphicsSyatem* gfxSys;
static DataSystem* dataSys;

static GameData* gameData;

void init() {
  KeyboardSystem* keySys = new KeyboardSystem();
  GraphicsSyatem* gfxSys = new GraphicsSystem();
  DataSystem* dataSys = new DataSystem();

  GameData* gameData = dataSys.loadData();

void render()

void cleanup() {

now call init then call render on a requestAnimationFrame loop just like JavaScript. What was so hard?

Second is that even if native developers don't have to refactor that code there are tons of other places they have to refactor. There is no path from native to browser that does not require a bunch of work if you want users to have a good experence. As a simple example I tried porting some native code. The first thing I had to do was refactor to be event based. The app came up. But, then I needed to deal with the fact that the native app was hardcoded to, at compile time, decide what keys to use for Windows, Mac, Linux. That doens't work in the browser where depending on what machine the page is viewed the keys need to change at runtime. Ctrl-C vs Cmd-C for copy etc. For that particular app it would have been far more work to make it do the correct thing at runtime instead of compile time than it was to refactor to make it event based.

That wasn't the end of it though. Next up was the clipboard support. The native code was designed to expect it could read the clipboard on demand but that's not how the clipboard works in the browser. In the browser the user presses Paste (Ctrl-V or Cmd-V etc) and only then is the clipboard made available to the app via a clipboard event. In this way the page can't read the clipboard as data is being passed to other apps. It can only read it when the user has pasted into this app.

And those were just the start. The apps that use a spinloop are 99% games. Non-games are more often than not event based. Games have lots of issues needing far more data that most other native apps. No user wants to wait 5mintes to an hour for all that data to download so if the ported native apps hope to have any kind of audience they need to refactor to stream the data and ideally start up with a minimal amount of data while they continue to download the rest in the background.

They also need to be able to save state, read mods, and lots of other things which change drastically and all of which require lots of work to be a good user experience in a browser.

My point being that just adding commit will not be enough. There's a ton of work involved in bringing a native app to the browser and it not having a very bad user experience. By adding commit it just makes it slightly easier to barf bad content on the web. That shouldn't be encoraged. If devs are going to bring their native app to the browser they need to actually do the work to make it a good experience. Refactoring to be event based is the least of their problems.

I hope that at least gives some creedence to the idea that we shouldn't use the fact that many native games use a spinloop as an arguement to support spinloops. Let them refactor their apps.

The bigger issue is I don't believe there is actually a solution to the issues above about blocking commit in a spinloop. If you block I guarantee there will be race issues. The next most obvious solution is to provide some kind of API that lets developers stop rendering. They can use the focus and blur events to do their own throttling or commit can return some value saying effectively "the next time you call me I'm going to freeze so you'd better get ready". Another idea is the browser runs the spinloop a few more iterations but some other API lets the spinloop worker check if it's going to be frozen.

It really doesn't matter which of those solutions happen. The problem is they are solutions that require perfection. Developers are told do, A, then B, then C and it will work. Yet we know with 100% certainty that will not happen. Developers, especially web developers, never do things perfectly. An API that requires perfection to work correctly will basically never work correctly on the web. To put it another way, if developers have to deal with all the race conditions that come up from using sharedarraybuffers with a commit function that can block at anytime then likely the majority of pages will have race conditions that trigger randomly.

IMO that's not a solution we should chose. rAF just works. If you're not the front page rAF does not get called but other events still get processed. You can still communiate with the worker. Blocking commit doesn't work. The moment it's blocked ZERO commication with that worker can happen. You can't rescue it or nudge it out of it's blocked state. It's blocked. And, as pointed out above, thottling is not a solution.

So, in summary, I would argue commit should NOT be added to the set of web APIs period. Require devs to refactor to use events is the only reasonable solution IMO.


Game Credits Out Of Control


Dear Games Credits, we need to have a talk. You are out of control and you seem to have lost the point of "credits".

As a perfect example, the PS4 God of War lists way too many people. They literally roll for 30 MINUTES!!

Imagine if the credits for Lord of the Rings listed not only Tolkien but also the person(s) that typeset the book. The person(s) that printed the book. The person(s) that managed the people that typeset the book. The person(s) that managed the people that printed the book. The person(s) who provided HR for the persons that printed and typeset the book. The president of the company that typeset and printed the book. The people that made the ink the book was printed with. The people that managed the people that make the ink the book was printed with. The assistants to the people that managed the people that made the ink the book was printed with. The people that delivered the ingredients to the ink factory to make the ink and on and on.

Sure, at some level you should be thankful for all of those people but that doens't mean they need to or should be listed in the credits.

Yes, who gets in the credits and who doesn't can be a contentious issue in the middle but it shouldn't be at the edges. The director of the game should get credit. The assistant to the salesperson in the foreign office should not. The caterer to the company should not get credit anymore than the cook at the burger place across the street should get credit no matter how much you love each of them. The art director should get credit. The team that makes the console's online store should not get credit. By that account every game on steam should be listing all members of Valve in their credits.

I don't know how to concretely define who should get credit. Off the top of my head credit should be given to those who materially contributed to the creation of the product. The keyword there is "creation". If you created parts of the content you could get credit. If you only indirectly supported people who created parts of the content you probably should not get credit with few exceptions.

Listing all the artists at an outsourcing company might make sense if all of those artists actually worked on the product. Listing the teams and managers that maintain the Playstation Network used by all games does not make sense anymore than listing the people that made the capaitors that sit on the electronics inside the machine or the guys that mixed the plastic for the power cables, or the captians that piloted the cargo ships that delivered the PS4s.

Serilousy, it's really a punch in the face to the actual God of War team that spent blood and tears working for 5-6 years on this game to then have their names diluted to the point of homeopathy with an extra 25 minutes of names. Just STOP IT. PLEASE!


Atarisoft Mario Bros for Commodore 64


A friend recently found this video of someone playing the Mario Bros for Atarisoft that my friend John Alvarado and I created right out of high school when we were 19 years old.

I'm embarrassed to say at 19 I couldn't figure out how to make the platforms warp when you bonk your head into them given the sprite limits on the C64. Similarly I could not figure out how to make the platforms freeze for some reason. (Of course I could do it now ..... probably )

The problem was the C64, in that mode, is tilemap based so the best I could do is change the 4-6 tiles above your head which wouldn't match where you actually hit your head, at least if I only had one set of tiles. Maybe if I had a set for every other pixel or something but you only get 256 total but assumign we just needed every 4 pixels and 4 frames of animation that would 6 x 4 x 4 or 144 tiles. Some of the tiles are needed for numbers etc. Maybe I should have done that! No idea if I thought of that and was just too lazy or didn't think of it. Of course it would need a few more for the edges and then a different set for the bricks and another set for the ice so maybe it isn't possible. Less positions and less frames maybe. 10 tiles (edges) by 2 frames by 2 positions by 3 tile types is 120 tiles ... I wonder if it would have fit.

Looking at the Ocean version whichd did ship I see their solutions. They don't have any end pieces and the just push up whole tiles. Either 2 or 3.

What else I can add .... I remember being super late on it and getting flown out to Atarisoft to get asked when we'd be done. For some reason I seem to remember we went to some restaurant where I was introduced to fried bananas.

It was a cartridge so IIRC it had to fit in 8k. (Could be confused there). I know Centipede was 8k. Centipede was a port from Atari to C64. The Atari version only used around 6k of the 8k cart so we had room to add animation and a few other things.

Got paid $10k. Still feel guilty about that since it didn't ship. I don't think any of that was shared with John. Sorry John!

Comments below the video for our version seem be pretty positive. They say it plays better than the Ocean version. Of course it helps that both John and I were totally addicted to the arcade version. We'd play together all the time. Such a great co-op game!


Why you should hang in there and learn git


A friend of mine was (is) struggling with learning git. I know what it's like. I was there. My progression was Source Safe -> CVS -> Subversion -> Perforce -> Mercurial -> Git. I found it frustrating at first and I didn't get it. Now that I do (mostly?) get it can't imagine switching back. So if you're frustrated learning git. You can't understand why it has to be so hard compared to what you're used to and you don't get the point. You feel like git adds nothing to what you're used to and it's just stupid then I hope this will help if only a little.

First off, an analogy. Imagine some one was working with a flat file system, no folders. They somehow have been able to get work done for years. You come along and say “You should switch to this new hierarchical file system. It has folders and allows you to organize better”. And, they’re like “WTF would I need folders for? I’ve been working just fine for years with a flat file system. I just want to get shit done. I don’t want to have to learn these crazy commands like cd and mkdir and rmdir. I don’t want to have to remember what folder I’m in and make sure I run commands in the correct folder. As it is things are simple. I type “rm filename” it gets deleted. Now I type “rm foldername” and I get an error. I then have to go read a manual on how to delete folders. I find out I can type “rmdir foldername” but I still get an error the folder is not empty. It’s effing making me insane. Why I can’t just do it like I’ve always done!”. And so it is with git.

One analogy with git is that a flat filesystem is 1 dimensional. A hierarchical file system is 2 dimensional. A filesystem with git is 3 dimensional. You switch in the 3rd dimension by changing branches with git checkout nameofbranch. If the branch does not exist yet (you want to create a new branch) then git checkout -b nameofnewbranch.

Git’s branches are effectively that 3rd dimension. They set your folder (and all folders below) to the state of the stuff committed to that branch.

What this enables is working on 5, 10, 20 things at once. Something I rarely did with cvs, svn, p4, or hg. Sure once in awhile I’d find some convoluted workflow to allow me to work on 2 things at once. Maybe they happened to be in totally unrelated parts of the code in which case it might not be too hard if I remembered to move the changed files for the other work before check in. Maybe I’d checkout the entire project in another folder so I'd have 2 or more copies of the project in separate folders on my hard drive. Or I’d backup all the files to another folder, checkout the latest, work on feature 2, check it back in, then copy my backedup folder back to my main work folder, and sync in the new changes or some other convoluted solution.

In git all that goes away. Because I have git style lightweight branches it becomes trivial to work on lots of different things and switch between them instantly. It’s that feature that I’d argue is the big difference. Look at most people’s local git repos and you’ll find they have 5, 10, 20 branches. One branch to work on bug ABC, another to work on bug DEF, another to update to docs, another to implement feature XYZ, another working on a longer term feature GHI, another to refactor the renderer, another to test out an experimental idea, etc. All of these branches are local to them only and have no effect on remote repos like github (unless they want them to).

If you’re used to not using git style lightweight branches and working on lots of things at once let me suggest it’s because all other VCSes suck in this area. You’ve been doing it so long that way you can’t even imagine it could be different. The same way in the hypothetical example above the guy with the flat filesystem can’t imagine why he’d ever need folders and is frustrated at having to remember what the current folder is, how to delete/rename a folder or how to move stuff between folders etc. All things he didn’t have to do with a flat system.

A big problem here is the word branch. Coming from cvs, svn, p4, and even hg the word "branch" means something heavy, something used to mark a release or a version. You probably rarely used them. I know I did not. That's not what branches are in git. Branches in git are a fundamental part of the git workflow. If you're not using branches often you're probably missing out on what makes git different.

In other words, I expect you won’t get the point of git style branches. You’ve been living happily without them not knowing what you’re missing, content that you pretty much only ever work on one thing at a time or find convoluted workarounds in those rare cases you really have to. git removes all of that by making branching the normal thing to do and just like the person that’s used to a hierarchical file system could never go back to a flat file system, the person that’s used to git style branches and working on multiple things with ease would never go back to a VCS that’s only designed to work on one thing at a time which is pretty much all other systems. But, until you really get how freeing it is to be able to make lots of branches and work on multiple things you’ll keep doing it the old way and not realize what you’re missing. Which is basically way all anyone can really say is “stick it out and when you get it you’ll get it”.

Note: I get that p4 has some features for working on multiple things. I also get that hg added some extensions to work more like git. For hg in particular though, while they added after the fact optional features to make it more like git go through pretty much any hg tutorial and it won't teach you that workflow. It's not the norm AFAICT where as in git it is the norm. That difference in base is what really set the two apart.

Let me also add that git is 4 dimensional. If branches are the 3rd dimension then versioning is the 4th. Every branch has a history of changes and you can go back to any version of any branch at anytime. Of course all VCSes have history and branches but again it's git's workflow that makes the differnce.

Let me also add that branches don't need to have anything in common. One branch might have your source. Another branch might have you docs. Whether that's common or not I don't no but it points out git doesn't care.

The most common example of this is probably github's github pages where github will, by default, serve as public a branch named "gh-pages". In several projects that branch has zero in common with the main branch. Instead some build script possibly running on a CI service builds the project's website and then checks it into the gh-pages branch. Whether using unrelated branches is a good practice or not AFAIK it's pretty much not done in other VCSes which I think hihglights a difference.


Software Development is never simple


Recently I wrote a little interval-timer.

I have a no-equipment interval workout, 30 rounds, 50 seconds each with a 10 second break between each one I've been doing for a while. I was using some online timer but it was buggy. It often displayed incorrectly and you had to resize your window once to get it work. It also didn't adjust to the window size well so if your window was the wrong aspect it wouldn't fit. Minor things but still annoying.

I checked out 5 or 6 others but they all required registration in order to try to sell you stuff or where covered in ads or didn't save your settings so you had to set them up every time or etc... etc...

I'd had it on my list of "This should be a simple few hour project, I should make my own" for at least a couple of years and finally recently I decided to do it.

Fighting CSS was, as always, no fun but eventually I got it to work, at least in modern current as of 2018/1 Firefox, Chrome, and Safari on desktop.

But! ... and I know this is normal but it's ridiculous how many small issues there have been.

First I thought "what the heck, it's a web page, let's make it work well on mobile (iOS) so I set the appropriate meta tags and futsed with the CSS a little and it comes up as expected. Except of course mobile has issues with how it computes full height 100vh and so my buttons at the bottom were off the screen. That is unless you saved the page to your home screen in which case iOS Safari goes fullscreen. Seemed good enough for me. SHIP IT!

So I post it to my facebook (friends only). First feedback I get is the controls weren't clear. Probably still aren't. One friend thought the circle arrow ↻ meant "go" instead of "rewind/reset" and I guess didn't recogonize the right pointing triangle ▶ as a "play" button. I made the circle arrow counter clockwise ↺ (not sure that helps) and added tooltips that say "reset", "start", and "stop" although that's only useful on desktop since you can't hover your finger on the phone.

Next friends complained it didn't run in iOS 10. I really didn't care when I wrote it, I'm on iOS 11, but then friends wanted to use it so I go look into it. Fortunately it was just adding prefixed CSS properties to fix it.

Then I was using URLs to store the settings like https://blabla?duration=50&rounds=30 etc.. but that meant if you added a bookmark and tried to change the settings you'd come back and your settings would be gone. Originally I thought putting them in the URL would let you have multiple timers but I doubt anyone would get that so I changed it to save the settings in local storage. You only get one timer. No, I'm not going to create a UI for multiple timers! I suspect most people just have one anyway and it's not too hard to change the 3 settings so it's probably good.

Then I realized I didn't handle hours for those few people that work out more than 1 hour so I added that. Speaking of which I also realize that entering seconds only is probably not a good UX. If you want 3 minute rounds you need to calculate in your head 3 * 60 = 180 seconds rather than put in 3 minutes 0 seconds but I'm seriously too lazy to deal with that and don't care. 😜

Ok, then I realized I was using requestAnimationFrame which doesn't run if the window is not visible. So for example you switch tabs to run music on youtube or something and the timer stops. Okay so I switched to using setTimeout and also made it set the title so you can still see the timer running even if it's not the current tab.

Then I noticed the tooltips I'd added above broke mobile. Buttons with tooltips required 2 clicks to work so I removed the tooltips.

Then I realized people were using it on the phone (I wasn't) and that the phone will go to sleep making it useless on the phone unless you manually prevent your phone from sleeping. I found a solution (which is friggen ridiculous) so now it doesn't let your phone sleep if the timer is running.

Then I realized the solution that prevents the phone from sleeping (which is to play a silent hidden video) stops your background music which is not very good for workouts. I found a solution which is to mute the video. I hope these 2 solutions continue to work.

Then I noticed that at least on iOS, if you add the page to your home screen, then, anytime you switch away from timer to another app and comeback it reloads the page meaning you lose your place. So today I made it save it's state constantly so if the page reloads it will continue. At the moment it continues as though it was still running. In other words if you're out of the timer for 3 minutes when you come back 3 minutes will have elapsed. I wasn't sure if that's what it should do or if I should pause the timer. As it is there so no way to rewind the timer a little which is probably the next thing I should consider adding.

So then I tried it on iOS but because of a bug it was actually pausing while switched away. That's when I noticed that when you come back, although the timer continues where it left off, because of limitations of mobile browsers the page is not allowed to make any sound unless the sound starts from a user interaction. Which means I'm basically forced to pause it and present a "continue where you left off" button. Or, just come back already paused and let the user press play.

And so this simple interval timer which I thought would take at most a few hours has now gobbled up a few days. Software dev is never simple. I wonder what the next issue will be 🤣


Why I Hate Software Dev


Ugh!!! This is why I hate computer dev! 🤣

So I decide I want to fix the CSS on vsa.com for Windows. In particular I wanted to try to fix the scrollbars so they look like the MacOS version. I'm thinking it will only take a few mins.

So I decide to start vsa.com in dev mode on Windows. (I normally do that dev on Mac).


Okay, F!!!, I don't want my machine effed up when different versions of meteor needed for one project vs another. Rant mode on, I wish all dev worked without installing anything globally or needing any kind of admin. As we learn of more and more exploits you should NEVER EVER BE ASKED FOR ADMIN. EVER!!!. I know it will be years or decades until this BS stops. Millions of machines will get powned by running un standboxed software that has exploits and installs via admin but until then I guess VMs it is 😡.

Eventually I got meteor running only to find out that tar on macOS and tar on Linux have different options and the ones I was using to re-write paths as I untar a backup won't work on Linux. I try restoring the DB manually but it doesn't work (no errors, but nothing showing up on the site).

I guess this is just par for the course. Doing new stuff is always a pain in the ass. It always takes time to setup something new and get it working and it's only after you've done that that you then go back to ignoring it because it's only important once every few months or years. Then next time you need to do it it's been so long that it's all changed and you have to spend the hours or even sometimes days getting your dev environmnet setup for your new project. Unfortunately new projects are getting more common or rather switching between many projects all with different needs for globally installed software is becoming far more common.

Still, it's super frustrating when you think something is going to only take a few mins and just getting to the point where you can actually do those few mins takes hours.

Finally I did what I probably should have done in the first place. I just run the mac version and go to http://<ipOfMac>:3000 on Windows, edit on Mac, check on Windows. I'm done in a few. Now if only all the browsers had a standard for scrollbar styling as it only works in Chrome.


Panopticlick Hyperbole


Pantopiclick is an Electron Frontier Foundation website intended to show you how easy it is to track you on the internet. As part of this it creates a browser fingerprint. In other words it looks at all the various pieces of info a browser makes available that might be different with your computer vs other computers and turns them into a signature.

Examples include your User Agent string (how the browser shows which version of which browser you're using), a canvas finger print in which the fact that different computers/GPUs/browser might render the canvas slightly differently and those differences can be used to tell one from another. There's screen size. Your machine might be 1280x720 and someone else's might be 1920x1080 or whatever. Yet another is your time zone. The time zone itself is not available but your computer's local time is which means they can derive your time zone. There's what headers your browser sends. There's also a WebGL finger print which is similar to the canvas finger print. WebGL has many queriable features like how many textures it can use, what extensions are available, etc that are different for different drivers/GPUs/OSes. You also have a language preference which the site can use to give you a webpage in your desired language. Also what fonts are available can be checked if you have flash enabled and to some degree even if you don't. It can also check which plugins you have installed.

The site takes all of that info, makes a siganture, and then tells you how unique your browser is.

In my case it claims my Mid 2014 MacBook Pro is nearly 1 in a million. To put that in perspective it's claiming for basically all of Japan there are at most 14 other people that have the same machine using the same setup (Chrome, Language = English, Timezone = Japan, Screen = 1680x1050, certain fonts, etc.)

That may be true. I have no idea but it seemed a little fishy.

So I thought let's try my iPhone. I did this originally with my iPhone6S+ but it really doesn't matter. Checking with my iPhone X using Safari in Los Angeles with the language set to English it tells me that my browser is one of 493332.5 browsers.

Well let's analyze that number.

First it knows my time zone is Pacific Standard Time (PST). Other than that 100% of all the other info should match every iPhone X in the Pacific Standard Timezone. You can't install plugins on iPhones so the plugins list will be the same for every phone. The screen size is the same for every iPhoneX. The canvas and WebGL signatures will be the same for every iPhoneX. You can't install fonts either so the font list will be the same for every iPhoneX. Similarly the User Agent will be the same or at least the same for everyone on the same version of the OS.

Checking various info we can make a conservative estimate there are at least 53 million people in the PST as it includes cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, San Fransico, Portland and others. According other stats at least 50% of those people own a smartphone. According to more stats iPhone has at least a 20% market share in the PST. People upgrade iPhones pretty quickly but let's assume conservatively that only 10% of those people that have an iphone have an iPhoneX. That means there are at least 53,000,000 * 50% * 20% * 10% or 530,000 iPhoneXs in the PST. That doesn't seem like an unreasoable number.

And yet based on Pantopticlick it's telling me I'm one out of 493332.5. In other words it's telling me that in all of the PST there are only at most 10 (ten) iPhoneXs. That's it. 10 phones! Clearly that's pure BULLSHIT!

In their defense they're claiming it's one of 493332.5 in their database. Their database is rotated every 3 months so if no other iPhoneXs have visited their site from the PST then yes the number might be accurate. But that's an irrelevant point. If a company wants to track people across sites it wants to track lots of people across lots of sites. Each site will have 1000s or millions of visitors. All 500k plus iPhoneX users in the PST are indistguishable by fingerprint across all of those sites so using this figureprint will not help them track those users in the least.

I'm all for the EFF warning people about the issues of tech. I'm a sponser of the EFF giving a not so small donation each year. But COME ON! Exaggerating these issues does nothing to help the EFFs case. Instead it makes the EFF seem unstrustworthy. If I can poke huge holes in this how do I not know that all the EFFs other press releases and issues are not similarly exaggerated.

EFF, please stop this hyperbole. You're only hurting your own cause.


Apple Privacy Snafu


Apple recently posted a kind of privacy manifesto trying to distinguish themselves from other companies that might take privacy less serious.

So, imagine my surprise when I took my Macbook Pro in for service and was asked to give them my login username and password. NO YOU CAN NOT HAVE MY LOGIN NAME AND PASSWORD!

The genius at the Genius Bar was going to type it into some form so the repair staff can log into my computer. This to me seems akin to asking for my bank PIN number. You're told again and again NEVER TELL YOUR PIN NUMBER EVEN TO A BANK REPRESENTATIVE. Sure the bank itself may or may not be trustworthy but you have to trust every person in between not to read that password.

There's all kinds of stuff on my computer. My privacy keys for various servers. My bank, investment, and insurance info. Even my gmail is already logged in as in open the browser, go to gmail.com and my email will come up letting any user that has access start going through all my accounts and asking for password resets.

No company that claims to be taking privacy seriously should have their employees asking for usernames and passwords.

I told the Genius person, No, he could not have my account info. He then suggested I make a test account and give them that password. Again, NO EFFING WAY!.

First off, my entire hard disc is encrypted. It used to be that when you'd boot the machine it would ask for a password to unlock the drive. Only then would it really boot the computer and ask you to login to your account.

Apple changed that sometime in the last 1 or 2 OS upgrades to somthing much much less secure. Now, if I understand correctly, the key to unlock the drive is stored on the computer itself encrypted and all users of the computer have their own encrypted copy of the key. This means any user can unlock the drive. In other words, if you have a test account enabled your machine will allow the test user to unlock the drive. Once the drive is unlocked they can scan the entire machine sector by sector to read the data out. Before, they couldn't use the machine at all until the drive was unlocked.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how giving Apple service my password is not insecure in the extreme.

To top that off it's not clear why they need the password in the first place. Macs easily boot from USB drives so they can plug in a USB drive if they want to see the computer work. If they want boot off an internal drive they can swap the internal drive with their own service drive. No reason for me to unlock my data for them.

In the end I told the guy I'd reformat the disk before bringing it in for service. It's hard to believe a company that claims to take privacy seriously didn't offer that as the first choice. In fact they didn't even suggest it. I had to suggest it.

Seriously, Apple. Having employees ask for a user's login credentials AND typing those credentials into some database seems incompatible with your privacy stance. Here's hoping you'll fix this.