This is the first in a series describing the past, present, and future of artificial intelligence. Check back to find more posts.

When asked about the meaning of life, digital physics pioneer Edward Fredkin responded, “I think our mission is to create artificial intelligence. It’s the next step in evolution” (Wright 80). Artificial intelligence, defined by Princeton’s Wordnet is, “the branch of computer science that deal with writing computer programs that can solve problems creatively” (”Princeton University,” par. 1). Fredkin apparently thinks that artificial intelligence is in our future, but what about our past and present? The general concept of making sentient machines has been around for thousands of years, and studying it reflects on who we are as sentient beings. The short, yet paradoxically long, history of artificial intelligence, or AI, can be divided into three main parts: artificial intelligence before the electromagnetic computer, the birth of artificial intelligence (officially 1956), and more recent developments in the field.

First, due to relatively undeveloped technology in the field of computing for most of human history, concepts in artificial intelligence were generally first found in literature and folk tales. In the AI Magazine article, “A (Very) Brief History of Artificial Intelligence,” Bruce G. Buchanan writes “Philosophers have floated the possibility of intelligent machines as a literary device to help us define what it means to be human” (53). One literary example is Mary Shelley’s original story of Dr. Frankenstein’s monster. The story illustrates a fictional form of artificial intelligence. The creation of Dr. Victor Frankenstein displays a variety of sentient—even human—behavior. For example, the monster feels misery and even requests that his creator build him a soul mate (McCorduck 20). In addition, there were a variety of literary works that included the concept of intelligent machines. Jean-Paul Richter’s obscure story, “The Death of an Angel,” inspired E.T.A. Hoffman’s, “The Sandman,” the latter being a story with robotic female characters. Hoffman’s work also inspired other individuals (15). The concepts of artificial intelligence have been around for hundreds of years before the field received its name.

But regardless of how primitive the technology was before the modern computing age, there was at least one notable attempt to create a machine that theoretically could achieve intelligence. For example, the Analytical Engine was a machine thought of by Charles Babbage in the nineteenth century. The idea behind the Engine was that it could be programmed to solve any possible logical or computational problem, possibly even including those that would give the machine sentience. Unfortunately, due to the state of technology at the time, Babbage failed to complete an implementation of the machine (Kurzweil 165-6). Of course, not all of the academic attempts that would have brought society closer to intelligent creations were actual machines. Approximately at the same time as Babbage, mathematician George Boole was attempting to figure out the governing rules of thought, and to express thought in symbols. Boole’s laws of thought eventually contributed to the rise of the modern computer (Gardner 142-3). Before Boole was the scientist Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. During the late 1600’s and early 1700’s, he theorized about creating an algebra of thought, which he described as a calculus ratiocinator. Scientists would be able to clearly and rationally communicate with each other, and theoretically communicate with calculating machines too. Hundreds of years later, modern artificial intelligence researchers were interested by the problems that Leibniz worked on (McCorduck 33). Scientists have always been attempting to make the field of artificial intelligence jump from a fantasy to a reality. Therefore, there have been many very serious scientific attempts to get closer to an artificial intelligence, but only very recently have researchers have had much luck.

In the next section of this series, the history of artificial intelligence will get more spicy as the invention of the modern computer will be covered.

(Want the cited sources? Find them here.)

Your common, non-technical Windows user has most likely not heard anything more than a cursory mention about Linux. They have questions about Linux that are not always answered easily. Many experienced Linux users are not able to answer questions that interested Windows users have in a manner that the latter party can easily grasp. This post is written to hopefully instruct Linux enthusiasts on how to explain Linux to nontechnical users.

Question 1: Why is Linux so special compared to Windows or Mac?

How to answer: If you’re being asked this question, you or somebody else has probably been over-exaggerating the awesomeness of Linux when speaking to the inquirer. However, to answer this, simply explain that people all around the world have come together to create a wonderful computing experience that can be legally downloaded for free; they’re giving it away.

Question 2: This whole open-source thing sounds like Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is full of vandalism. Is Linux safe?

How to answer: Explain that in Wikipedia, you can make changes without the permission of anybody; people come look at your change later. To make a change to the official Linux kernel, one has to discuss the change for quite a while in advance. Remember to tell them that one can make unofficial Linux-based kernels, and the most popular unofficial kernels (such as those available in Debian, SuSE, or Red Hat) are also somewhat protective of the changes that can be made.

In addition, I advise you to not defend Wikipedia, because that is another battle.

Question 3: Windows works fine; why should I switch?

How to answer: This is somewhat dangerous territory. The best answer is telling them that they don’t have to switch. After all, maybe Windows really is the operating system that they should be using. But don’t forget to remind them about Linux’s security.

Question 4: If I install Linux on my computer that has Windows, I’m not actually saving any money. Why do I install Linux, then?

How to answer: Tell them of the security benefits. Explain that, in the world of online banking, security is something that should especially be worried about.

In addition, you can point them to various places where they can purchase a Linux computer if they are in the market for a new machine. For example, you can point out Dell’s Ubuntu line.

Question 5: What is the easiest way I can try out Linux?

How to answer: The below list describes, from easiest to most difficult, ways to try out the Linux desktop, or something that feels like a Linux desktop.

1. Install Windows-equivalents of popular Linux desktop applications, such as:
   • GIMP
   • Pidgin
   • Geany
   • Inkscape
   • Firefox
   • OpenOffice

   Remember to tell them that this isn’t actually Linux, but it feels like it.

2. Wubi — A tool to run Ubuntu from within Windows.
3. A live CD. Remember to tell them that the live CD does not change their Windows installation, as the above two options do. This is generally more difficult if the user burns his or her own live CD. If the user is capable of getting or buying a live CD from you, or another party. Canonical, for example, will ship you a free Ubuntu CD–though it may take you a long while to receive it.
4. Installing a popular Linux distribution for themselves.

Question 6: How do I choose a distribution of Linux? There are so many!

How to answer: Every true Linux enthusiast has got complex feelings about various distributions. In the past, I have written a post about this issue, and have told enthusiasts to just recommend Ubuntu. I don’t say to recommend Ubuntu for technical reasons, but to recommend it for support, marketing, and other non-technical reasons. I admit my opinion is controversial, but simply recommending Ubuntu makes the sea of distributions somewhat less intimidating.

Question 7: How do I choose a desktop environment? There are so many!

How to answer: This is a bit tricky. What desktop environment I recommend really depends on my mood, the time of day, and what /dev/urandom outputs.

Right now, I believe Xfce has an excellent future for being the newbie user’s Linux desktop. Xubuntu is an Ubuntu spin-off that provides the Xfce desktop.

Question 8: Why do you talk about Linux so much?

How to answer: This is probably another sign that you should scale back on your Linux discussions. Choose a simple expression to capture why you like Linux so much. A personal favorite of mine is that I want to, “share the love.”

Again, apologies for the much delayed posting.  Finals together with the sluggishness of my backup computer made me unable to write this until now.

For those who don’t remember, we are in the middle of a series on what interesting developments and capabilities are ongoing within the Free Desktop to improve its fitness for both personal and enterprise usage.

Infrastructural Enhancements

This category of purely under-the-hood work is not immediately obvious and thus is often under-appreciated, but yields many useful improvements to the Free Desktop.

One notable entry here is automatic code parallelization in GCC (the main compiler on Linux) through Graphite, which should lead to significant performance improvements for all programs on computers with multiple processing cores.  Of course, the scope of what can be done is limited due to this sort of conversion requiring a higher-level view of what a block of code is meant to do, but nevertheless this is very much a welcome feature that will keep our beloved compiler in line with the current state of compiler technology.

Filesystems have always been an area of interest for the Free desktop; from the plain-spoken and default ext3 to the fast ReiserFS and SGI XFS, Linux especially has always had a variety of powerful filesystems available for any task. The march of progress has thankfully not left this critical job by the wayside.  ext4, the successor to ext3 featuring much improved performance through more flexible filesystem clustering through extents, and new features such as defragmentation support and checksumming of filesystem journals for increased reliability became stable in Linux 2.6.28.[22][23] Fedora 11 is going to include it included by default, which should come as either a pleasant or a terrifying prospect depending on one’s view on stability.[24] I’d say that I’m psyched, but I’m using it right now on my Arch Linux installation so such a statement would be misleading.

However, by the ext4 project leader’s (Theodore Ts’o) own admission, ext4 is not revolutionary enough.[25] The next major filesystem on the horizon is btrfs, designed to overcome many of the limitations of ext3 and ext4 in filesystem size and administration.[26] Among the interesting features it will bring will be transparent checksumming and compression for files, defragmentation and filesystem checking while the filesystem is mounted, and more sophisticated data striping.  If you’re keen to try it out, it should be included with Fedora 11, but be warned that the filesystem format is not yet stabilized or optimized and thus your data may be prematurely ended.[27]

Security

The infamous security framework soap opera is still going on, of course, with the usual politics and petty bickering within the Linux kernel development community.  Although the free desktop takes much well-deserved pride in its security, the Unix-like user-group-other security model (Discretionary Access Control, or DAC) traditionally used for managing permissions has proven to be both insecure and distinctly un-Unix-like.  Not only was it crafted before any concept of wide networking had really been established, but it also far too permissive and course-grained in its management.  Hence the need for a new security system that builds on top of the traditional model; there are many competing modules alive in the ecosystem, but it remains to be seen which (if any; after all, FLOSS is all about choice) will prevail.  An important thing to be aware of within this realm is the LSM, or the Linux Security Modules; a common Mandatory Access Control (MAC) security framework API within the kernel.

POSIX File Capabilities, while not strictly a security framework, are a minimalistic approach to security available since Linux 2.6.24.  Basically, they use the extended attribute system of modern filesystems such as ext3, ext4, btrfs, etc. to allow a program to do tasks that would traditionally require root permissions.  Far short of being a clone of the classic SETUID bit that forces a program to be run as root (an over-simplification), it instead limits what a program can do to the minimum that is needed.  The implications of this are invasive and far-reaching; for instance, using file capabilities it is no longer necessary to be root in order to burn an optical disk.  LWN as always has a good read on the topic.

SELinux (Security Enhanced Linux) is another security framework, only instead of merely being an extra set of permission bits it is a full-blown MAC solution.  Developed by the National Security Agency in 2000, SELinux was the first major security framework available for Linux and is now used most notably by Red Hat and Fedora.  Although it is generally considered quite secure because it uses an inode-based system instead of filenames (avoiding issues of different restrictions referring to the same file), it is also notorious for being a nightmare to configure.[28]

AppArmor is the main competitor to SELinux, developed originally by Immunix but later released and maintained by Novell after they perchased the former.[29] It is currently used by most notably by OpenSUSE and Ubuntu, presumably due to its ease of configuration compared to SELinux.  However, it is considered less secure due to its reliance on filenames instead of filesystem objects, and thus there has been a great deal of controversy both petty and significant to the point that Linus Torvalds himself has had to step into the fray despite his self-proclaimed disinterest in security frameworks.[28] Like SELinux, it is a MAC security framework using LSM, but unlike it, AppArmor has failed to be merged into the mainline kernel tree due to both technical troubles and political infighting.[29]

SMACK (Simplified Mandatory Access Control Kernel) is a much more recent entry into the security game available since Linux 2.6.25 that promises drastically simpler configuration at the cost of less power and capabilities compared to SELinux.  In addition to eased configuration, it apparently also uses a hybrid approach to the inode/path debate.[30]

Lastly, TOMOYO is the latest entry to this… active… environment of security frameworks.  It is not yet available in a stable kernel release, but should be available in Linux 2.6.30.  Much like AppArmor, it uses pathnames as its basis for handling files, but among other things is designed to be more robust by working around weaknesses in LSM allowing more intellegent handling of file objects.