Chameth.com - posts like apple-google-aligned-incentives, debugging-beyond-the-debugger but not docker-automatic-nginx-proxy, tracking-pbs-without-the-dark-patterns, why-you-should-be-using-https

How tech companies failed to build the Star Trek computer

2025-07-16T00:00:00Z

A computer core room on the Enterprise-D

In most Star Trek series, the ship or station computer is ever-present in the background, waiting to be called on by the main characters¹. It nearly always does exactly the right thing, and there’s little limit to the functions it can perform. Take this mundane example from DS9:

KIRA: Computer, establish link with the Bajoran Medical Index for the Northwestern District.
COMPUTER: Link established.
KIRA: Access all information on Doctor Surmak Ren.
COMPUTER: There are no records matching that name.
KIRA: Try the Northeastern District, same search.
COMPUTER: Doctor Surmak Ren, currently serving as Chief Administrator of the Ilvian Medical Complex.
KIRA: Computer, open a channel to the Ilvian Medical Complex. Administrator’s office.

The computer is doing some kind of networking to a database only identified by name. It does a search and summarises the lack of results. It then repeats the process with another database, and succinctly announces the results. Finally, it opens a communication channel to a specific room in a facility, based only on its name.

This whole interaction is remarkably boring². Kira doesn’t have to know any URLs or API endpoints, or what protocol she wants to use. She doesn’t have to open a specific app and then login and then try the query again. She just says what she wants and the computer does it.

It seems like this should be one of the most easily obtainable bits of sci-fi wizardry with our current technology. We have multiple massive companies throwing lots of money at digital assistants, LLMs that are improving at an insane rate, but we’re somehow not even close to the usability or usefulness of the Trek computers. What gives?

Boring is, well, boring.

Larry Page once said something that might help explain it:

The Star Trek computer doesn’t seem that interesting. They ask it random questions, it thinks for a while. I think we can do better than that.

This is the same Larry Page that founded Google, whose mission statement is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. Of all people, surely he should find an omnipresent computer that can answer ‘random questions’ interesting?! It seems like it should be the epitome of Google’s mission!

Google’s “better than that” seems to have been to stuff LLMs into every product they can, even when you don’t want them there. Even when they’re worse than the normal content they displace. These things look exciting when they’re part of a scripted demo at Google I/O, but they fall flat and just get in the way when they’re exposed to the reality of day-to-day use.

The Star Trek computer is the opposite: it isn’t snazzy, but it is genuinely useful. That means it’s not an attractive target for the company execs who want marketing opportunities, and it’s not appealing for engineers who need to demonstrate “impact”. But even if Google did try to make the Trek computer, there are other problems…

Assistants need to be free

A significant amount of tech companies’ business models currently revolves around trapping users in walled gardens. They want you using their ecosystem; that way they get more data from you, and you’re more likely to spend more money on their other offerings that work together. There’s barely any incentive to allow any kind of interoperability with other platforms outside carefully contracted integrations.

I remember trying to help a family member move their photos from iCloud to Google Photos. At one point they turned around and said, exasperated, “why is this so hard? Aren’t they both in the cloud?!”. It’s easy to dismiss that as someone who hasn’t quite grasped the fundamental idea that “the cloud” is just someone else’s computers, but that’s not the whole story. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t be a quick and easy transfer: both services already allow uploading and downloading, there’s just no incentive for the companies involved to make it so³.

These kinds of misaligned incentives and walled garden business models cause even more problems when it comes to digital assistants. Siri is basically never going to be able to interact with, say, your Google Drive; ~~Bard~~ Gemini is never going to be able to send a message via iMessage. Even when there are appropriately blessed interactions, they’re so clunky. Can you imagine Captain Picard saying “Computer, ask the turbolift skill to take me to deck 5”?

Someone else’s computer

Software issues aside, there’s still a key difference between the Star Trek computers and our current batch of digital assistants: where they run. The Trek computers are all housed within the ship or station they serve; they can connect elsewhere to gather information, but they run entirely independently. If they go wrong, a local engineer can go in and fix things. While some of our assistants may have physical hardware in your home, they don’t work without a vast cloud apparatus behind them. If your Internet connection fails, they become paperweights. If the company running them decide to remove some functionality you depend on, you have no recourse.

That kind of helplessness isn’t limited to assistants, either. There’s a rapidly growing trend of being unable to modify or repair hardware you fully own and control. Part of this is just that they’re becoming more complex: it’s a lot harder to replace a microchip than a gear, but companies are also going out of their way to make it more difficult for users through draconian DRM regimes⁴ and aggressive intellectual property enforcement. If the US Navy can’t repair their own equipment because a corporation says so, what hope do consumers have?

We’re approaching a point where you don’t actually own anything. Software is cloud and subscription based, hardware is unrepairable. Even cars can be remotely updated and have features added or removed. The Federation wouldn’t allow a third party control over their ships⁵, so why are we so happy to put up with it in everything we consume?

A small ray of hope?

The most promising way of tackling all of these problems is through legislation. The EU’s Digital Market Act is an attempt to force ‘gatekeepers’ like Google, Apple and Meta, to allow third-party access to their services. It seems like a pretty reasonable approach, but the tech companies are unsurprisingly resisting it. Apple in particular have gone out of their way to refuse to comply, and when forced to do so have limited the functionality to people in Europe. Still, the DMA is a promising start, and if similar legislation is introduced (and robustly enforced) elsewhere it might start forcing companies to behave a bit better.

There are also smaller companies that actually do the right thing. Framework make laptops that are user-serviceable; Fairphone do the same for mobile phones. Smaller software companies provide useful, open APIs. The average person on the street will probably have never heard of these, unfortunately, but they do still exist. Maybe as the bigger tech companies tighten the screws more, people will turn to alternatives like this? Or maybe we’ll just keep accepting that our computers work for everyone but us?

Unless, of course, the computer is playing the role of the episode’s MacGuffin and has contracted space-computer-COVID or something, then it’s a lot less in-the-background. ↩︎
It’s almost like it only exists to move the plot along. ↩︎
You can generally export your data, thanks to a combination of legislation and efforts like Google’s “Data Liberation Front”, but I’ve never seen an export format that could then just be imported into an equivalent commercial product. ↩︎
Oh, you’ve changed the screen on your iPhone? Better hope it can do the secret handshake with the Apple hardware. ↩︎
I think there might actually have been an episode where that did in fact happen. We’ll just ignore that as a plot contrivance. ↩︎

Apple, Google and aligned incentives

2020-10-17T00:00:00Z

The HTC Dream, the first phone released running Android.

For the past decade I’ve exclusively used Android phones. I got the HTC Dream (aka the T-Mobile G1) shortly after it came out, and dutifully upgraded every 1-2 years. In that timespan I used Android as the basis for my Master’s Thesis, took a job on the Android team at Google, and eventually became a contractor specialising in Android app development. So when I switched to using an iPhone earlier this year a few people were surprised¹.

The good old days

When Android was announced in 2007 – alongside the formation of the Open Handset Alliance – it was positioned as a bastion of openness: it would be built on open standards and the operating system would be open source. At the time iPhones were strongly coupled to iTunes and Apple was exercising strict control over what app developers could do.

When the HTC Dream was released it lived up to expectations. You could write apps for it without shelling out for a Mac! You could get root access, and it was running Linux under the hood! A whole ecosystem of custom firmwares and bootloaders started to appear, thanks to the open source nature of the OS. It shipped with some Google apps, but they were just normal apps that served as examples of what could be done.

After the Dream came a line of Nexus devices. These were Android’s flagship devices, designed to show off what a good Android phone should look like. Both the hardware and software releases tended to feature interesting, useful upgrades. Some of the original open source apps were replaced with closed source, Google proprietary ones, but that was OK - the open source versions lived on in the open source project as examples of what you could do. The devices allowed flashing custom firmware, and the OS source was always released… eventually.

The downfall

The Pixel and Pixel XL

Over time, Android has got less and less free. The Nexus line of phones gave way to the Pixel range, which got rid of the clearly demarcated border where Android ended and Google began. The Android 11 highlights list is dotted with sections that say “On Pixel devices…”, and every single one is a software feature that could be implemented on any device, but Google have decided to keep it proprietary instead of releasing it as part of the open source platform.

At the same time more and more functionality has been added to Google Play Services. This was originally a shared location for Google specific services - in 2012 it merely handled some Google+ functionality and dealing with OAuth for Google accounts. These days it contains a huge swathe of Google services, as well as platform functionality such as push notifications, barcode scanning, geolocation, and so on. Google Play Services isn’t part of the Android Open Source Project, and is only available under license from Google. You can’t really have a device without these functions, so as a manufacturer you have the choice between agreeing to whatever terms Google requires² or spending an awful lot of development time creating an alternative.

While these are fairly abstract arguments about what a free platform should look like, during the same period there has been a marked restriction in how you can actually use Android devices – both as an end-user and as a developer. iOS has always had very stark restrictions on what apps can do in the background; Android started its life allowing pretty much anything, like any good general purpose computing device. This inevitably lead to lots of apps doing lots of things that ranged from stupid to mildly suboptimal, creating a tragedy of the commons amongst apps. The victim was the phone’s battery life, and Google’s solution was a progressive series of restrictions on what apps can do and when. This includes limits on when push notifications are delivered to a device, how frequently apps can wake up, and so forth. Some of these can be bypassed by the end-user, but not all, and the process is fairly cumbersome.

Aligned incentives

From my point of view, Android and iOS are now pretty much in a similar place. They’re not general purpose computers, but app consoles: much like games consoles they consist of hardware and software that the user lacks control over but accepts in order to access the library of apps/games.

Given there’s no clear winner between them in terms of hardware and software, my decision came down to a more holistic question: how aligned are their incentives to my own? Apple is a product company: they make their money by producing shiny things that people want to purchase; Google is an advertising company: they make their money by using my personal information to show me targeted adverts.

For Google, Android was originally a strategic move to ensure that Apple couldn’t dominate the mobile web, and by extension the revenue from ads. As a company, there’s nothing to really push them forward in any particular direction other than one that facilitates advertising. Of course, Google employs tonnes of good people who want to do good things which counterbalances this, but I’d still prefer to deal with a company that has an intrinsic motivation to do things I want them to do, rather than one forced to by regulation, custom, or the good intent of their employees.

So the decision became obvious: if I have no strong opinions about the software and hardware, Apple is the clear winner because their incentives are a lot better aligned to mine.

Image credits

Photo	Creator	Licence	Source
HTC Dream	Akela NDE	CC BY-SA 3.0	Wikimedia
Pixel and Pixel XL	Maurizio Pesce from Milan, Italia	CC BY 2.0	Wikimedia

Or, at least, politely feigned surprise. ↩︎
And Google’s terms were particularly onerous: as well as requiring Chrome and Google Search to be preinstalled, they prevented manufacturers from selling any devices powered by alternative versions of Android - e.g., Samsung wouldn’t be allowed to sell a refrigerator that ran Amazon’s FireOS. The European Union handed Google a $5,000,000,000 fine for this anti-competitive behaviour, which Google are still in the process of contesting. ↩︎

Debugging beyond the debugger

2019-05-08T00:00:00Z

Real-life debugging tools

Most programming — and sysadmin — problems can be debugged in a fairly straight forward manner using logs, print statements, educated guesses, or an actual debugger. Sometimes, though, the problem is more elusive. There’s a wider box of tricks that can be employed in these cases but I’ve not managed to find a nice overview of them, so here’s mine. I’m mainly focusing on Linux and similar systems, but there tend to be alternatives available for other Operating Systems or VMs if you seek them out.

Networking

tcpdump

tcpdump prints out descriptions of packets on a network interface. You can apply filters to limit which packets are displayed, chose to dump the entire content of the packet, and so forth.

Typical usage might look something like:

# tcpdump -nSi eth0 port 80
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 262144 bytes
16:03:35.577781 IP6 2001:db8::1.54742 > 2001:db8::2.80: Flags [S], seq 2815779044, win 64800, options [mss 1440,sackOK,TS val 2378811665 ecr 0,nop,wscale 7], length 0
16:03:35.586853 IP6 2001:db8::2.80 > 2001:db8::1.54742: Flags [S.], seq 1522609102, ack 2815779045, win 28560, options [mss 1440,sackOK,TS val 3063610173 ecr 2378811665,nop,wscale 7], length 0
16:03:35.586877 IP6 2001:db8::1.54742 > 2001:db8::2.80: Flags [.], ack 1522609103, win 507, options [nop,nop,TS val 2378811674 ecr 3063610173], length 0
16:03:35.620678 IP6 2001:db8::1.54742 > 2001:db8::2.80: Flags [P.], seq 2815779045:2815779399, ack 1522609103, win 507, options [nop,nop,TS val 2378811708 ecr 3063610173], length 354: HTTP: GET / HTTP/1.1

Here you can see the start of a plaintext HTTP request: the three-way handshake as the TCP connection is established followed by a GET request. Even if the data is encrypted as it will be in most cases, it’s often useful to see the “shape” of the transmissions: did the client start sending data when it connected, did the server ever respond, etc.

Daniel Miessler has a good tutorial on tcpdump if you’re not familiar with it and don’t want to jump straight into the man page.

… with Docker

Docker sets up separate network namespaces for each container. To see the traffic across the interfaces of a single container you can nsenter the container’s network namespace:

# nsenter -t $(docker inspect --format '{{.State.Pid}}' my_container) -n tcpdump -nS port 80

This retrieves the PID for the container, and tells nsenter to enter the network (-n) namespace from the given target (-t) PID, and then run the given command (in this case tcpdump ...).

openssl s_client / s_server

When a connection is using TLS it’s often useful to try connecting to the server and see what certificate it presents, algorithms it negotiates, and so forth. OpenSSL offers two useful subcommands which can help with this: s_client for connecting as a client, and s_server for listening to connections.

For example, using s_client to connect to google.com on the standard HTTPS port shows us details about the server cert and its verification status:

$ openssl s_client -connect google.com:443
CONNECTED(00000003)
depth=2 OU = GlobalSign Root CA - R2, O = GlobalSign, CN = GlobalSign
verify return:1
depth=1 C = US, O = Google Trust Services, CN = Google Internet Authority G3
verify return:1
depth=0 C = US, ST = California, L = Mountain View, O = Google LLC, CN = *.google.com
verify return:1
---
Certificate chain
 0 s:C = US, ST = California, L = Mountain View, O = Google LLC, CN = *.google.com
   i:C = US, O = Google Trust Services, CN = Google Internet Authority G3
 1 s:C = US, O = Google Trust Services, CN = Google Internet Authority G3
   i:OU = GlobalSign Root CA - R2, O = GlobalSign, CN = GlobalSign
---
# ...

Whereas connecting to my webserver and providing an unknown host in the SNI field results in an SSL alert 112 (“The server name sent was not recognized”) and no server certificate is sent:

$ openssl s_client -connect chameth.com:443 -servername example.com
CONNECTED(00000003)
140384831313024:error:14094458:SSL routines:ssl3_read_bytes:tlsv1 unrecognized name:../ssl/record/rec_layer_s3.c:1536:SSL alert number 112
---
no peer certificate available
---
# ...

Often if you hit this kind of alert in an application the exact error will be lost somewhere in the many layers between the SSL library and the logs, so being able to directly connect and test can help diagnose a lot of issues.

Once a connection is established you can read and write plain text and it will be encrypted and decrypted automatically.

Java apps

If a Java app is involved in the connection, you can enable a lot of built-in debugging with a simple JVM property: javax.net.debug. You can tweak what exactly gets logged, but the easiest thing to do is just set the property to all and you’ll see information about certificate chains, verification, and packet dumps:

$ java -Djavax.net.debug=all -jar ....
# ...
found key for : duke
chain [0] = [
[
  Version: V1
  Subject: CN=Duke, OU=Java Software, O="Sun Microsystems, Inc.",
  L=Cupertino, ST=CA, C=US
# ...

More information about Java’s debugging options is available on docs.oracle.com.

Thread and core dumps

Higher-level languages frequently provide an interactive way to dump the current execution state of all of their threads (a “thread dump”). This is useful to spot deadlocks, some types of race conditions, and as a quick and dirty method of investigating hangs or excessive CPU usage.

With both Java and Go applications you can send a QUIT signal to have a thread dump printed out; Go applications will quit after doing so, Java ones will carry on running. At most terminals you can hit Ctrl and \ to send a QUIT signal.

For Java you can also use the jstack tool from the JDK to dump threads by PID; this can be useful if the application is running in the background or has redirected sysout:

$ jstack 8321
Attaching to process ID 8321, please wait...
Debugger attached successfully.
Client compiler detected.

Thread t@5: (state = BLOCKED)
 - java.lang.Object.wait(long) @bci=-1107318896 (Interpreted frame)
 - java.lang.Object.wait(long) @bci=0 (Interpreted frame)
 - java.lang.ref.ReferenceQueue.remove(long) @bci=44, line=116 (Interpreted frame)
 - java.lang.ref.ReferenceQueue.remove() @bci=2, line=132 (Interpreted frame)
 - java.lang.ref.Finalizer$FinalizerThread.run() @bci=3, line=159 (Interpreted frame)

# ...

A core dump provides more complete information about the state of a process, but is often more complex to interpret. The gcore utility from GDB will create a core dump of a process with a given PID. You can then generally load the core file using your normal debugger, depending on the language in question.

System calls

strace is the swiss army knife for seeing what a process is doing. It details each system call made by a program (you can filter them down, of course). For example:

$ strace -e read curl https://google.com/
read(3, "\177ELF\2\1\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0>\0\1\0\0\0 \236\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 832) = 832
read(3, "\177ELF\2\1\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0>\0\1\0\0\0P!\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 832) = 832
read(3, "\177ELF\2\1\1\3\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0>\0\1\0\0\0\200l\2\0\0\0\0\0"..., 832) = 832
read(3, "\177ELF\2\1\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\3\0>\0\1\0\0\0\20Q\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 832) = 832
# ...
read(3, "\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\4\25\345\366\302\273sE6\365wI\225\321|\3435Z\362\216\372\215\251aO"..., 253) = 253
<HTML><HEAD><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8">
<TITLE>301 Moved</TITLE></HEAD><BODY>
<H1>301 Moved</H1>
The document has moved
<A HREF="https://www.google.com/">here</A>.
</BODY></HTML>
read(3, "\27\3\3\0!", 5)                = 5
# ...

Brendan Gregg has a nice guide on strace and alternatives.

… with docker

When the application is running in docker you can usually just strace it from the host with the correct PID (from e.g. docker inspect --format '{{.State.Pid}}' my_container). Sometimes you may need to trace the startup of an application though, which is a bit trickier. Instead you can run a new container using the same PID namespace as your target, and the permissions needed to strace:

$ docker run --rm -it --pid=container:my_container \
  --net=container:my_container \
  --cap-add sys_admin \
  --cap-add sys_ptrace \
  alpine

From within the new container you can install strace, and trace any running program within the target container using strace -p as normal. To start a new program you need access to the target container’s filesystem, which you can get to via /proc/1/root (PID 1 being the main process that docker started in the target container).

Files

Sometimes the problem might relate to file access. There are a couple of straight forward — but nonetheless useful — tools which might help here. inotifywait uses the Linux inotify subsystem to watch files or directories for operations. For example:

$ inotifywait -mr site/content
Setting up watches.  Beware: since -r was given, this may take a while!
Watches established.
site/content/post/ MODIFY 2019-05-08-debugging-beyond-the-debugger.md
site/content/post/ OPEN 2019-05-08-debugging-beyond-the-debugger.md
site/content/post/ MODIFY 2019-05-08-debugging-beyond-the-debugger.md
site/content/post/ MODIFY 2019-05-08-debugging-beyond-the-debugger.md
site/content/post/ CLOSE_WRITE,CLOSE 2019-05-08-debugging-beyond-the-debugger.md
# ...

Here the -m switch makes inotifywait monitor the files forever (instead of exiting on the first modification, which is the normal behaviour) and r makes it recurse into the directory and monitor each file and subdirectory in there.

If you want to see what processes currently have a file open, fuser is the go-to tool. For example:

$ fuser -v /
                     USER PID ACCESS COMMAND
/:                   root     kernel mount /
                     chris      2961 .rc.. systemd
                     chris      2986 .r... gdm-x-session
                     chris      2994 .r... dbus-daemon
                     chris      3001 .r... gnome-session-b
# ...

Honourable mentions

These aren’t really debugging tools, but I feel it’s worth mentioning as they often feature somewhere along the debugging-of-weird-problems journey.

I’ve seen some weird and wonderful problems happen because a disk is full, so a quick df early on in the debugging process never hurts. Some apps may hang, some may corrupt their config, some may fall over and die; sometimes the manner in which they fail doesn’t obviously point to a disk space issue.

Another issue that comes up now and then — especially inside VMs or other environment that don’t have a decent amount of “noise” happening — is entropy exhaustion. A quick look at /proc/sys/kernel/random/entropy_avail should be enough to confirm that everything is ticking along nicely. If it’s exceedingly low then you may find that anything involving random number generation stalls (TLS connections for example).