[00:03] <rww> I'll update factoids for the new Firefox release shortly. Am going to clean up some factoids at the same time, so it'll take a bit. (in case anyone else was thinking of doing the same)
[00:08] <Pici> new firefox :(
[00:08] <rww> !fx6 is <reply> Firefox 6 will be available as an update for 11.04 shortly. For 10.04 and 10.10, you can use the unofficial and unsupported PPA at https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/firefox-stable
[00:08] <rww> !ff6 is <alias> fx6
[00:11] <rww> !firefox6 is <alias> fx6
[00:51]  * mneptok starts a FLOSS project called "FX6"
[00:54] <Jordan_U> mneptok: We already have a FLOSS project called chromium that is a game rather than a browser (whose package causes quite a lot of confusion).
[00:55] <Jordan_U> Aww, it was renamed to chromium-bsu just to ruine my fun :(
[00:55] <Jordan_U> ruin even.
[01:24] <galamar> Hello. Am I still banned from #ubuntu?
[01:27] <galamar> Okay so yes I am banned suppose I didn't need to ask that. how can I get unbanned please?
[01:36] <elky> i'll need to check, hold on
[01:40] <elky> galamar, it appears that you a. are using a non-supported derivative yet asking questions in #ubuntu, b. threatening people and c. ban evading.
[01:46] <galamar> I did act in appropriate however I am over that now. A I have read alot of the wikis to better understand my problem. and won't ask for help in the wrong channel anymore. But I don't feel I am guilty of the ban evading because my phone was set to  auto-login to #ubuntu. And when I loaded the irc app it looged in and I was just suprised to be in. and still mad so probably more unnecessary actions from there as well. But my nick was the
[01:46] <galamar> same so I did nothing to evade. Yet if you still call it evading than that is what I was doing and I am sorry for that as well.
[01:52] <elky> given the variety of hosts and providers that you accessed the channels by, i'm strongly doubting that it's your phone reconnecting
[01:58] <galamar> xchat used when on my ubuntu desktop... irssi used when I was attempting to boot from a livecd (I would apt-get everytime so I wouldn't have to reboot to my ubuntu.).... jmirc used on my phone. this has the option to save my preferences to load automatically. I had this set to #ubuntu long before my ban. A it has a different ip address which is why it was able to get in #ubuntu. but as I said if you say evading than I was. Or better ye
[01:58] <galamar> t I WAS evading and I am sorry!
[02:03] <elky> And the threat?
[02:04] <elky> Actually, I'm going to let you discuss the threat with Ikonia.
[02:04] <galamar> me and Ikonia had a slight battle however I would like to apolo
[02:04] <galamar> that it what I was just saying thank you.
[02:05] <elky> It's currently the middle of his night, so you'll need to wait until he's around
[02:05] <galamar> ok if it 9pm where I am do you know what time it will be when he is on?
[02:06] <elky> the middle of your night, but he'll be around when you wake
[02:07] <galamar> I recently started a new job and dont have the ability to be the night owl I was. So I may just have to wait until this weekend. As I leave early in a rush and don't have time than either.
[02:08] <elky> the wait will let you figure the best way to word your apology then.
[02:09] <elky> if there's nothing else, you should leave here until then so we can keep track of who we need to talk to :)
[02:09] <galamar> Okay, does he keep the same hours on the weekend?
[02:09] <elky> roughly
[02:09] <elky> you could also try memoserv
[02:09] <elky> and either arrange a time or discuss it that way
[02:10] <galamar> Is being a ubuntu-op like an actual job for you all?
[02:11] <elky> it can be, i need to go back to doing my actual paid job now
[02:11] <galamar> Ok thank you and farewell.
[03:10] <tonyyarusso> Man, I wish opping had a paycheck.  That would rock.
[03:11] <Flannel> tonyyarusso: Just ask for donations from the people you ban!
[03:12] <Corey> tonyyarusso: You don't get one?
[03:12] <Flannel> "Hi, if you enjoyed your interactions with me, consider donating to me on beggr!"
[03:18] <tonyyarusso> Corey: ha.  Maybe HR has the wrong address?
[03:49] <PerfieM> I'm ready to "behave" (whatever that means....)
[03:49] <PerfieM> So that ban on #ubuntu can be lifted :)
[03:50] <Flannel> PerfieM: Alright.  I assume you remember the conversation last night about code of conduct and IRC guidelines and stuff?
[03:51] <PerfieM> yeah boi, I got it all under control now
[03:52] <Flannel> PerfieM: Alright.  I've removed your ban in #ubuntu.  Please join there and say something so I can verify I didn't do something wrong.
[03:53] <Flannel> PerfieM: Perfect.  If there's nothing else we can do for you, you can leave this channel now.  You're all set.  Have a nice evening.
[03:53] <PerfieM> Thanks Flannel!
[04:09] <rww> now i have to go through #ubuntu's banlist and grab all of PerfM's bans, don't I >.>
[04:09] <bazhang> just wait
[04:17] <Flannel> rww: I got them.
[04:17] <rww> Flannel: all of them?
[04:17] <Flannel> It was just one, unless he's been banned under various hosts?
[04:17] <Flannel> No, just what bansearch returned
[04:17] <Flannel> bantracker isn't liking me tonight
[04:17] <rww> PerfM!*@* is still there, at the very least, and I'd expect hostbans
[04:20] <rww> (I suspect that the reason they changed nick was because of the multiple channels that have them banned by nick, btw.)
[04:22] <Corey> I'd be in faor of clearing the banlist.
[04:22] <Corey> rww: And no.  Someone registered perfm's nick to toy with them.
[04:23] <rww> Corey: ah. there goes me and my negative thoughts again
[04:23] <bazhang> raid controller driver?
[04:24] <rww> bazhang: yes?
[04:24] <rww> I think my opinions on the banlist are rather evident :)
[04:24] <Corey> If eir's working well, I'd be in favor if clearing the entire thing out.
[04:24] <bazhang> eir is working very well
[04:25] <Corey> There are a LOT of six month old bans there.  Do we *really* need them?
[04:25] <bazhang> easy enough to reban if they become a problem
[04:25] <Corey> Exactly.
[04:26] <Corey>   /msg ChanServ CLEAR #ubuntu BANS
[04:26] <rww> Flannel: no more nick and gateway/* bans on PerfM. If there are hostname ones, I'll remove them when I stumble across them.
[04:26] <Corey> Simple as anything to re-add them.
[04:26] <Corey> Eir's tracking will ensure they're not hanging around forever just because whoever set them forgot.
[04:27] <rww> Feel free to carry on with that message, Corey, but I didn't get anywhere with it. I've been going through and reviewing bans whenever the list gets over about 300 total instead.
[04:27] <rww> Hence it currently being ~250 instead of full :)
[04:27] <Corey> rww: Well if I clear all the bans, will people hate me? :-)
[04:28] <rww> Corey: I won't, but some people will probably be rather displeased.
[04:28] <Corey> Okay.  How do we coordinate this?
[04:29] <rww> Give me ircop powers. You work on the banlist and I'll work on k-lining complainers. :D
[04:29] <rww> More serious: It'd probably end up going to the IRCC if you really want to push it.
[04:30] <Corey> rww: Email best?
[04:30] <rww> Corey: could be an interesting discussion for ubuntu-irc@ list.
[04:31] <rww> I'd suggest bringing it up at an IRCC meeting, but I have a terrible record at this point of actually turning up to them, so :|
[04:33] <Corey> Yeah likewise
[04:33] <Corey> Emailing now.
[04:33] <rww> argh, SIFTU's nick makes me think someone is cussing every time I see it
[04:52] <tonyyarusso> Corey: In the past we've been able to remove all bans that don't have a comment, which works well.  I have no idea how many commented but obsolete bans there are.
[04:52] <rww> this does not fulfil my need to see the banlist in #ubuntu completely empty just once :(
[04:53] <rww> Corey: If you haven't seen it already, http://status.nullcortex.com/other/other/ircbans.html . The last time we did what tonyyarusso mentioned is rather evident.
[04:54] <tonyyarusso> It's kind of crazy how quickly #ubuntu's list shot back up after that...
[04:55] <rww> Part of that was because nobody used to pay attention to Floodbot bans (and Floodbot used to ban open proxies)
[04:58] <rww> (compared to now, where FloodBots own a total of 7 bans)
[05:14] <rww> Corey: I started replying to your email, but it's turning into an essay, so I'll have to ponder how to say less words before sending.
[05:16] <rww> Two things I'm mentioning that we haven't discussed here yet: 1) the AKICK list also needs pruning (I've said this repeatedly in the past, btw). 2) I'm concerned that the main reason we have such a large banlist is our operators' attitude about how long bans should be kept, and that wiping the banlist would just clear up more space for bans that should be removed and aren't.
[05:18] <rww> eir will help with the latter, but as Flannel's rightly pointed out elsewhere, eir and autoremoving bans implies a different philosophy than the one used by some (the majority?) of the team.
[05:20]  * rww goes away from IRC to atom zombie smash
[05:24] <Corey> rww: I think you're right.
[05:24] <Corey> rww: To go a bit further, I don't think I want to be an operator of the kind of channel where "you misbehaved a year ago and your (dynamic) IP is still banned for it" is the norm, y'know?
[05:26] <Flannel> Corey: It's not, we clean bans regularly.
[05:28] <Corey> Flannel: I get that, but...
[05:28] <Corey> Now that we have a sane ban tracker in place (a lot of thought went into eir) I'd love to get rid of the bans that predate her.
[05:29] <Flannel> I don't see how that's related to the change-in-policy.  Nor does eir actually track bans, just removes them after N.
[05:29] <Flannel> Well, I suppose you could consider that "tracking", but it's just "here's a ban!", not providing any additional information.
[05:30] <Corey> Flannel: She does now. :-)
[05:30] <Flannel> Glorified, non-lossy, banlist.
[05:30] <tonyyarusso> For what it's worth, I would *like* my bans auto-removed after some configurable time period unless I manually mark them otherwise - we just haven't had the technical ability to do this in the past.
[05:30] <tonyyarusso> (Yes, that makes me a lazy op.  AND?)
[05:31] <Flannel> tonyyarusso: Two days is a stupid period, and again, it's a departure from our previous policy.
[05:31] <tonyyarusso> I said configurable.
[05:32] <Flannel> being forced to do additional paperwork every time you ban someone isn't condusive to being a 'lazy op'
[05:32] <tonyyarusso> You know what would be super awesome?  Setting the period in the ban comment.  eg /abr Flannel 1 bans Flannel for one day.
[05:33] <tonyyarusso> Flannel: I'm not sure what your last statement means.
[05:33] <Flannel> tonyyarusso: I frankly don't really think publishing the length of bans is a great thing.
[05:33] <tonyyarusso> I should clarify that I mean on a per-op basis.  Meaning, I can tell the bots that my bans should be removed after 24 hours unless they are told otherwise, whereas you can tell them to remove after a week.
[05:34] <tonyyarusso> Flannel: Agreed, but it would be convenient ;)
[05:34] <Flannel> tonyyarusso: Having to say "ok, eir, I just set a ban, please make it last for at least a month instead of two days" every time you ban someone isn't "lazy op" friendly
[05:34] <tonyyarusso> Flannel: How often do you actually make bans that would require an exception to your normal period?  For me it's a very rare event.
[05:36] <Flannel> tonyyarusso: I don't have a normal period, so .... always.
[05:37] <Flannel> eir is a freenode thing, so unfortunately we don't have the ability to just add/customize it as we want.
[05:37] <tonyyarusso> Well, then you just set your defined period to "Never remove for me", and let me enjoy my laziness.
[05:37] <Flannel> tonyyarusso: Except we cant add that feature.
[05:38] <tonyyarusso> Sure we can.  We just need to start intimidating staff into doing our bidding!  Right?
[05:38] <Flannel> Also, when eir was first introduced, it was discussed as an optional thing.  Something operators can use if they so choose.  Automatically removing my bans is not making it optional for me.
[05:40] <tonyyarusso> See what I just said?  My hypothetical model would let you set it to do nothing for you.  Or have it opt-in for all.  Either way.
[05:41] <Flannel> tonyyarusso: and that's fine.  Except that it's hypothetical.
[05:41] <tonyyarusso> eir is software.  Software can be fixed.
[05:42] <Flannel> tonyyarusso: So fix it.
[05:42] <Flannel> tonyyarusso: Don't force me to use it in an incomplete state.
[05:42] <tonyyarusso> I'm not?
[05:43] <Flannel> tonyyarusso: Not you in particular, but it has been, in fact, forced upon me.
[05:44] <tonyyarusso> Well, the whine about it to people more responsible for that ;)
[05:47] <Flannel> tonyyarusso: I made a fairly straightforward argument; it's not whining.  Sure, I'm stating a grievance, but frankly, the rug was pulled out from under me.
[06:06] <rww> Flannel: Some of our ops clean bans regularly. Some of them don't.
[06:07] <rww> Also, I note eir is open-source. One option would be to spin up a new instance of it and add our odd particular needs to it. I expected that to happen, actually, but I guess not thusfar :)
[06:07] <Flannel> rww: It's a separate issue.  Technical solution to social problem, yadda yadda.  When cleaning bans, other operator's bans are generally cleaned too.  Operators don't 'own' bans anyway.
[06:09] <rww> Flannel: Operators own bans in the sense that if I set a ban, I am responsible for keeping track of it and removing it when it is no longer needed. It is a bit rude to lose track of it and leave it to the person who gets too much time on their hands and cleans up the ban list themselves.
[06:10] <rww> This happens in #ubuntu, constantly, and it's a byproduct of our "leave bans in place until the user comes in to resolve it, even though that doesn't happen with 3/4 of our bans" philosophy.
[06:11] <Flannel> rww: I could see arguments for both sides.  We attempted to help resolve that with ubottu's pings a week later for review.
[06:12] <rww> Switching to a "I'll remove this ban if the user comes in and resolves it, and if they don't, remove it in a few weeks for me" is a social and technical change, and imho makes for a better system overall, despite the downsides of eir.
[06:12] <Flannel> I don't think removing bans immediately as a matter of course is healthy though, just as letting them languish forever is also not good.
[06:13] <rww> (or: I'd rather have to say "%~14d drive-by trolling" in PM when setting a ban than go through the slow bantracker and 250 banlist entries to weed out my stuff periodically)
[06:13] <Flannel> We use bans as a tool to effect change in the offenders, not as a time-out period of punishment.
[06:13] <Corey> Flannel: Both are a little naive.
[06:13] <rww> For most users, if they haven't come by in a fortnight, they're not going to come by. I agree that two days is too drastic of a policy change.
[06:14] <Corey> I find that bans are a great tool to keep the channel sane for the vast majority of participants.
[06:14] <Flannel> Removing them after 2 days skews the ban-mentality too far to the "routine punishment" and away from "lets figure out how to fix this"
[06:14] <rww> agreed
[06:14] <Myrtti> there are some bans that have been removed in the past and have somewhat quickly been reinstated because these offenders are lifestyle trolls...
[06:14] <Corey> Flannel: As opposed to right now, where you've got a ban on some random IP that's over six months old. :-)
[06:14] <rww> though I note that elsewhere on freenode (#freenode and #defocus come to mind), 2d is probably plenty
[06:14] <Flannel> rww: Yeah, we do get a lot of one-shot run-by misbehavior, but it's difficult, if not impossible, to tell that at the outset.
[06:15] <Flannel> Corey: We clean those.
[06:15] <rww> Myrtti: and the reinstatement (and telling eir to get lost as far as that ban's concerned) is pretty trivial
[06:15] <rww> Flannel: no, we don't
[06:15] <Corey> Actually, I find my ten minute temp-quiet script is usually far past the attention span of most trolls.
[06:16] <Corey> It also keeps me from having to mess around with a ban tracker. :-)
[06:16] <rww> I used 10 minute quiets for a while. I didn't find it useful, mainly because I couldn't find a way to override it to say "never mind, leave this up"
[06:16] <Corey> rww: Oh, that's easy.  Wait ten minutes, then hit with a real ban.
[06:16] <Flannel> rww: We do.  Recently you've gotten into the habit of nuking the banlist before it gets to the nagging stage, but we do clean it.
[06:17] <rww> Flannel: when I cleaned up #ubuntu-offtopic, there were dynamic IP bans from 2009 in it.
[06:17] <rww> The same was true of #ubuntu before I started poking at it.
[06:18] <rww> I attribute this to 1) BT doesn't catch bans sometimes, 2) /mode #channel b loses bansetter information. Bans fall through the cracks.
[06:18] <Flannel> #ubuntu-offtopic isn't a priority, obviously the bans weren't causing trouble.
[06:18] <Myrtti> I see participating in this conversation on my phone is useless and my opinion is propably unneeded and wanted. More sleep for me, thxbai
[06:19] <Flannel> It's not the end of the world if a dynamic IP ban lasts for a year accidentally; it probably won't affect anyone.
[06:19] <Flannel> I fully agree that we could do better at cleaning.  Like all aspects in life, we could eat healthier, clean our house more, etc, etc.  That's just a constant.
[06:20] <Flannel> But it's not the end of the world if a ban accidentally gets missed.
[06:21] <Flannel> rww: Your "how do I stop a quiet from auto-removing" scenario can easily be extended to eir, you have to remember to go back and make it permanent/longer.
[06:21] <rww> It's not "a ban", it's a lot of bans. Plus people don't clean their bans. The only reason the banlist isn't perpetually full is because me and one or two other people have been going through and stopping it from getting that way.
[06:22] <Flannel> And now that I'm thinking about that, is it ban evasion if a ban is automatically removed accidentally?  Obviously not, but I'm sure this will come up.
[06:22] <rww> Flannel: No, it can't. With eir it is trivial to extend quiet/ban lengths. With autobleh it is not doable afaik.
[06:23] <rww> I've been reading #ubuntu-ops for rather a long time. I remember how it was a year ago. I remember Floodbot constantly complaining about the banlist being full. Please don't try to tell me that before I recently started nuking the banlist things were okay.
[06:23] <Flannel> rww: People would take the time to remove enough bans to keep us going.
[06:23] <Flannel> Again, having old dynamic IP bans aren't likely to cause issue.
[06:23] <rww> #ubuntu constantly having 400 to 450 bans set was ridiculous.
[06:23] <Flannel> I don't know why having a banlist that's only got 50 bans in it is chic right now.
[06:24] <Flannel> rww: It's really not anything.
[06:24] <Flannel> The only affect I can think of is that ubottu has to sync it whenever she starts up.
[06:25] <Flannel> eh, wrong effect.  What I get for changing sentence structure midway through.
[06:25] <rww> It's a pain in the backside. We have 250 right now and I can't tell whether I've removed all the relevant bans when I unban a user because BT isn't helpful and the banlist is too full for me to look through it.
[06:25] <Flannel> rww: So, sounds like we have a problem with the bantracker then.
[06:25] <rww> And then we end up not knowing if someone's supposed to be banned or not because one person sees that bans have been removed and another sees that bans are still there. This has happened twice in the last two weeks.
[06:26] <Flannel> Since I don't think expecting people to sort through 50 bans, quiets, etc is any better than 200.
[06:26] <rww> 50 is a hell of a lot easier to sort through than 200
[06:26] <Flannel> But either way isn't smart.
[06:26] <rww> The problem we have is that the number of stale bans makes it necessary to have a bantracker in the first place to index them all.
[06:27] <Flannel> Stale or active, you still have to sort through them.  I don't see how a factor of 4 is the difference between "zomg crazy" and "it's good"
[06:28] <rww> And even assuming that we need enough bans set that we can't keep track of them all and need a BT to do it, the secondary problem is that probably more than half of the bans in BT aren't actually commented, so we don't know what the heck's going on even if we do manage to find them.
[06:28] <Myrtti> http://pastebin.com/
[06:28] <Myrtti> meh
[06:29] <rww> Myrtti: go back to sleep, phone IRC is hell :)
[06:29] <Myrtti> it used to worj
[06:29] <Flannel> rww: I'd argue that fixing that problem is much more beneficial (especially the fringe benefits) in the long run.
[06:29] <Myrtti> my script that is
[06:30] <Tm_T> non-descriptive bans (lacking comments or other clear reason why) are big problem
[06:30] <Tm_T> and I'm to be blamed of that too
[06:30] <Flannel> Especially when the ban is late and there's no nick in the hostmask.
[06:31] <rww> Flannel: Nobody is fixing Bantracker. Your argument is completely meaningless given that. We're sitting in a holding pattern waiting for BanTracker 2, and I hate to be pessimistic but eir is here now and will help, and Bantracker 2 has zero lines of code written afaik.
[06:32] <Flannel> rww: Shuffling things around for no good reason just because we haven't made progress on our original plan is a stupid way to run things.
[06:33] <rww> Flannel: Ignoring ideas that will help the situation while waiting for a pie in the sky plan that nobody is working on is even stupider.
[06:33] <Flannel> Especially when their original interface is misconstrued (I have complete faith that this wasn't intentional)
[06:35] <Flannel> rww: I'm not ignoring ideas, I'm just saying that we obviously didn't think this through, or that we misunderstood and need to reconsider, because I don't believe "lets use something we don't have control over which inadvertantly change the way we approach bans and/or puts additional requirements on our operators" is a good plan.
[06:39] <Flannel> I should maybe use enter more often.  Making sure I have all my verbs (and not too many) in long statements like that is troublesome in irssi.
[06:40] <rww> I don't consider the additional requirement of talking to eir to be a problem. If anything, it'll make it more likely that bans have comments if it's used properly. That we're using freenode's eir instance instead of rolling our own with our custom hackery is odd to me and I agree probably should be changed. I'm wondering why we chose to do that.
[06:41] <rww> (I guess to avoid having Yet Another Bot that needs hosting 24/7)
[06:41] <Flannel> rww: Still, eir was advertised (yesterday even!) as an optional thing.  This is not currently optional.
[06:42] <rww> Flannel: If I were changing the current situation, I'd clone eir and change the default to #~7d. (notify about ban after 7 days, do not autoremove).
[06:43] <Flannel> I think that'd be a sane default, yes.
[06:44] <Flannel> Oh, look, an eir webpage.
[06:44] <rww> (Perhaps eir can have different defaults for different channels. If so, cloning is not strictly necessary, but given that there are other hacky changes needed for Floodbot integration, it's probably something to strongly consider.)
[06:44] <Flannel> Hmm, more importantly, why did google not show me this webpage earlier when I searched for info on eir.
[06:45] <rww> tsimpson's email did link to that page, if it's the one I'm thinking of :P
[06:45] <bazhang> !eir
[06:45] <Flannel> Yeah, it did.  But google didn't for me.
[06:46] <Flannel> it does now though.
[06:46] <rww> !eir-#ubuntu-ops-team
[06:46] <bazhang> hehe
[06:47] <rww> !eir is a bot for managing ban expiration. For usage instructions, see http://freenode.net/eir.shtml . For source code, see https://dev.freenode.net/redmine/projects/eir
[06:47] <rww> !forget eir-#ubuntu-ops-team
[06:50] <Flannel> rww: I modified !eir to include <reply> etc
[06:52] <rww> !+eir
eir is a bot for managing ban expiration. For usage instructions, see http://freenode.net/eir.shtml . For source code, see https://dev.freenode.net/redmine/projects/eir
[06:55] <rww> Flannel: I think that "!factoid is <reply> factoid is blah" is someone's pet peeve, which is why I didn't do it :P
[06:56] <Flannel> rww: Well, it comes into play with uppercase first characters (all factoids are converted to lowercase), and also with aliases, I believe.
[06:57] <Flannel> meh, now I have to figure out the ignore-for-pings syntax in irssi.
[06:58] <Flannel> oh hey, this is this channel.
[07:02] <rww> Flannel: I'm now pondering whether one could have Encyclopedia silently convert !foo is bar to !foo is <reply> foo is bar upon factoid addition/editing and deprecate !foo is bar syntax.
[07:04] <Flannel> rww: You'd have to check for the special cases upon editing, so you don't automatically come up with foo is <reply><alias> baz
[07:04] <Flannel> and the like
[07:05] <rww> Amaranth: I just ignore him these days :(
[07:05] <Amaranth> heh
[07:05] <Flannel> and you'd have to strip out channel specific bits of the factoid.
[07:05] <Amaranth> rww: he tries so hard
[07:05] <Flannel> Neither of these are undoable, but I'm wondering where other leopards would hide.
[07:05] <rww> Amaranth: I started getting irritated at 90% of his questions being trivially Googleable, so I decided to disengage.
[07:06] <rww> Flannel: yeah, the impression I get is that changing anything in ubottu is 10 times harder than it seems at first glance.
[07:07] <Amaranthus> weird...
[07:15] <ikonia> another ubuntu-tweak failure
[07:15] <ikonia> it's the modern day automatix
[07:15] <bazhang> does ubuntu tweak do something that gconf-editor or the like cannot?
[07:15] <ikonia> no
[07:16] <bazhang> so just breaks things then
[07:16] <Tm_T> it's just a yet-another-UI
[07:16] <Tm_T> with features like that, yes
[07:16] <ikonia> I wish authors of tools like this would contribute to gnome tools directly if they have a better idea than whats there
[07:16] <bazhang> s/automatix/ultamatix/
[07:16] <popey> looks less like an ubuntu-tweak failure and more like pilot error
[07:16] <bazhang> heh
[07:16] <Tm_T> bazhang: no, automatix
[07:17] <bazhang> Tm_T, ultamatix is the successor.
[07:17] <ikonia> popey: I suspect that is realisitc more than the tool, but the tool doesn't help matters
[07:17] <Tm_T> bazhang: I know (:
[07:17] <bazhang> used in UE
[07:17] <Tm_T> now I'm very amused, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatix_%28software%29
[07:18] <Tm_T> it's notable enough to have wikipedia entry
[07:18] <bazhang> which has two users in its channel, one an ubuntu member
[07:18] <rww> I don't like Ubuntu Tweak, but I don't think it's really fair to compare a tool that runs gconf commands to a tool that runs sudo apt-get -y with some truly braindead options.
[07:18] <bazhang> true
[07:18] <popey> +1
[07:19] <Tm_T> rww: indeed, different caliber
[07:19] <bazhang> world breaker vs. annoyance
[07:19] <ikonia> I'm sitting it in the same camp
[07:20] <ikonia> the author is a good guy, I've spoke to him about trying to get it into the repos with some documentation for support, or even feeding parts of it into gnome, but he can't be bothered
[07:21] <Tm_T> I consider it in very different place in harm scale with automatix, but I do support it similarly: none whatsoever
[07:21] <bazhang> and viktor35 was just banned from -ru for trolling
[07:22] <rww> ah.
[07:24] <rww> ikonia: I was getting there :P
[07:24] <ikonia> I can't be bothered, we all know what his intention was, why drag it on
[07:24] <bazhang> of course they usually remove their bans within an hour or two
[07:25] <bazhang> backbox?
[07:25] <bazhang> surely he means backtrack
[07:27] <popey> http://www.backbox.org/
[07:28] <bazhang> yep just found it
[07:38] <jpds> bazhang: Well, everyone in -ru is troll.
[07:38] <bazhang> hey! I'm the founder in there!
[07:38] <rww> QED
[07:38] <bazhang> :/
[07:39] <jpds> Что rww сказал.
[07:40] <rww> Cyrillic is all Greek to me :(
[07:40] <jpds> rww: It is descended from Greek writing.
[07:40] <rww> jpds: that was the joke :(
[07:41] <bazhang> St. Cyril
[07:42] <rww> PSA: http://i.imgur.com/FyW8l.png
[07:42] <Myrtti> http://pastebin.com/
[07:42] <Myrtti> still...
[07:42] <Myrtti> meh
[09:45] <ikonia> g0t's changed the bot so it doesn't respond in pm any more, just channels
[09:50] <Tm_T> aww
[11:02] <Myrtti> ikonia: LOL. I suppose he considers it to be an upgrade of some sort?
[11:04] <Tm_T> ?
[11:15] <Myrtti> oo, get out the firecrackers
[11:15] <Myrtti> #ubuntu has been quiet for five minutes
[11:25] <galamar> Is Ikonia here?
[11:27] <IdleOne> not sure if he is active but maybe we can help you?
[11:28] <galamar> I need to apologize to him.
[11:29] <IdleOne> go ahead, he will see the scroll back in here or you can PM him
[11:30] <galamar> Okay I will PM him.
[11:36] <IdleOne> galamar: Please part this channel as per the no idling rule. thanks.
[11:41] <galamar> Ok sorry
[11:42] <galamar> My client doesn't allow me to type and view at the same time. I was writing a msg to ikonia and forgot i was still active.
[12:16] <ikonia> for the record (I'll do BT now) galamar sent me a nice pm apologising, so I'll remove the bans on him
[13:27] <Pici> yay wrong information day :(
[13:27] <ikonia> ?
[13:27] <ikonia> where / what
[13:27] <Pici> nothing.
[13:27] <Pici> ash/bash/sh bleh
[13:27] <ikonia> bad day ?
[13:28] <Pici> I'm having a bad day already, yes.
[13:28] <ikonia> oh, what's up with that ?
[13:28] <Pici> Just annoying little things.
[13:28] <ikonia> may I suggest drop all, and leave for the day ?
[13:28] <Pici> Nothing serious :)
[13:28] <Pici> On deadlines, need to get thigns done.
[13:28] <LjL> Pici: i'm using Windows now because i like free software, and also because my btrfs failed because it's not a journalled filesystem
[13:29] <Pici> LjL: I'm sorry to hear that :(
[13:29] <ikonia> LjL: welcome back from the alsp
[13:29] <ikonia> alps
[13:29] <Pici> slaps
[13:29]  * jussi hugs LjL :(
[13:30] <LjL> Pici: the least bad thing that happened during the past days, really. thing is, this computer keeps rebooting by itself during the first minutes it's up, so the hard disk got garbled up
[13:30] <LjL> ikonia: wish i didn't have to come back :\
[14:04] <Pici> ikonia: maybe we should move that conversation in here?
[14:04] <ikonia> yes, I think so
[14:05] <ikonia> I was going to let it slide until that last comment
[17:59] <IdleOne> Myrtti, FuzzyNuts is back. the nick alone makes me want to ban them
[17:59] <Myrtti> I know
[18:00] <Pici> classy
[18:00] <IdleOne> they don't seem willing to stop trolling
[18:03] <Myrtti> spidersense tickles
[18:04] <IdleOne> I set the ban for 15 minutes, will see if they start up when the ban gets removed
[19:33] <rww> !fx6
[19:34] <rww> !fx6 =~ s/will be available as an update for 11.04 shortly/has been released as a security update for 11.04/
[19:42] <Jordan_U> Yay :)
[19:42] <Pici> lucid
[19:42] <Pici> !lucid
[19:46] <Jordan_U> On the subject of ban clearing. If we did decide to "/msg chancery clear #ubuntu BANS" and all hell does indeed break lose how difficult / disruptive would it be to re-instate the bans (given preparation for that eventuality)? More disruptive than a bad netsplit?
[19:47] <rww> it's chanserv. btw.
[19:47] <Pici> chancery :(
[19:47] <rww> Corey's client autocorrected or something.
[19:47] <rww> Jordan_U: I could do it in about 10 minutes and a bunch of channel spam.
[19:50] <Jordan_U> rww: Then it sounds like a worthwhile experiment even if it does fail. I'd like to know how many trolls really are waiting for a chance to disrupt the channel and are being stopped solly by bans.
[19:52] <Jordan_U> rww: How long would it take you to tell eir not to undo all that work in two days?
[19:52] <rww> Jordan_U: not long, I'd just tell it "#~30d reinstating pre-apocalypse ban" until it stopped nagging me
[19:53] <rww> downside would be that eir would then think I owned them. I'd prefer to run a ban ownership list before clearing and have people reinstate their own bans from that list afterwards if they want
[19:54] <rww> that'd also give people an opportunity to decide whether they want particular bans kept or not
[20:05] <rww> tsimpson: so I'm guessing you get this a lot, but what precisely is it in Bantracker that makes it take a minute to load?
[20:06] <rww> t-dialin.net user alert :D
[20:07] <tsimpson> 1) the DB is huge, 2) the plugin inefficient, and 3) too much voodoo
[20:08] <Pici> It is very inefficient.
[20:09] <Pici> What a surprise. fsefdsfd is a dip.t-dialin.net address.
[20:40] <rww> I did mention that, yes :)
[20:41] <Pici> rww: oh, I missed it
[20:41] <rww> you don't have all of that ISP on highlight yet? ;)
[20:42] <rww> #ubuntu's banlist is the smallest it's been since April right now :)
[20:49] <galamar> Hello. Did my apology to ikonia suffice to have my ban lifted?
[20:53] <rww> galamar: ikonia mentioned that he was going to remove your bans. Can you /join #ubuntu and make sure you can join and speak, please?
[20:55] <galamar> Yes i can thank you
[20:55] <rww> Alrighty. If memory serves, there were a few bans on you, so if you get a message about being banned in the future drop by and let us know. Hopefully you're all set, though :)
[20:56] <rww> Standard note: please follow our guidelines and the code of conduct when in #ubuntu. You can see them at any time with /msg ubottu !guidelines
[23:48] <bazhang> gentoo64 just seems to be making random statements as "support"
[23:48] <bazhang> check "about:config for that"  how?   "no idea"
[23:50] <bazhang> already spoken to him in PM about telling people to "just google it"
[23:54] <rww> PerfM in #ubuntu, I'm not touching it because I'd prefer to establish multiple ops banning him.
[23:56] <rww> best to go with a nickban, imho
[23:56] <bazhang> he's rejoined but muted apparently
[23:57] <rww> indeed
[23:57] <rww> changes IPs frequently though, in my experience
[23:57] <Jordan_U> Since he's a webchat user.
[23:57] <Pici> you can't mute webchatters
[23:58] <PerfieM> I got outta control in #ubuntu, only because I thought I was in #ubuntu-offtopic. I am terribely sorry
[23:58] <PerfieM> terribley*?