[10:00] <AlanBell> hi all, we have an IRCC team meeting over in #ubuntu-meeting in one hour from now
[10:03] <ikonia> I am doing my best to attend but maybe driving
[10:04] <AlanBell> probably not a wise combination
[10:05] <ikonia> no, it would not be my best decision
[15:11] <LjL> ftr <Guest81454> is not using Ubuntu but Backtrack, found out in PM
[16:14] <oCean> !~bittorrent
[16:14] <oCean> !-bittorrent
[16:16] <oCean> !no torrent is <reply> Some torrent clients: Transmission (GTK and terminal-based), Deluge-Torrent, Freeloader, BitStormLite, BitTornado-GUI (GTK), KTorrent (KDE), QTorrent (Qt), Azureus/Vuse (Java), !Frostwire (Java), TorrentFlux (web-based), bittornado, rTorrent, cTorrent, bittorrent, aria2 (terminal-based) - FAQ: http://www.bittorrent.com/help/faq
[16:16] <oCean> almost
[16:17] <oCean> !torrent is <sed> /$/ - See also !P2P
[16:17] <oCean> !torrent is <sed> /$/ - See also !P2P/
[16:17] <oCean> !torrent
[16:43] <EvilResistance> opinions on the discussion of 'aircrack' in channels?
[16:44] <EvilResistance> i know that at least one or two operators in #ubuntu / #ubuntu-offtopic are not fond of that discussion
[16:44] <LjL> it's a package in the repos, i don't see why it wouldn't be discussed
[16:44] <EvilResistance> LjL:  my take on it, if you're open to opinions, is this:
[16:45] <EvilResistance> aircrack, and other wifi security cracking tools, should be considered offtopic because in most cases of its discussion, it is discussed under the ruse of security, when it is more than likely used to actually gain access to a protected wifi one shouldnt have access to.
[16:46] <LjL> well i disagree with that stance, we shouldn't judge what "in most cases" something is discussed for.
[16:46] <LjL> if it's clear that someone *specifically* is using it to that purpose, then don't help them
[16:46] <EvilResistance> i do agree that *basic walkthroughs* would be decently on-topic
[16:46] <EvilResistance> i do not agree with answering of specific questions outside a basic walkthrough, if you know what i mena
[16:47] <LjL> err
[16:47] <LjL> i was saying the opposite thing
[16:47] <LjL> walkthroughs are not for #ubuntu-offtopic really
[16:47] <EvilResistance> I come from the cyber security field, so the discussion of aircrack in general is something i dont agree with
[16:47] <LjL> and i think if someone wants to crack his or her (or others') network, they can have the decency to do their own research on how exactly to do that
[16:47] <EvilResistance> last week, someone cracked the passcode to a low-importance state-owned wifi network with aircrack
[16:48] <EvilResistance> i only identified it because i was monitoring the network for errors, but you understand my concerns
[16:48] <LjL> so your stance is that security shouldn't be discussed?
[16:48] <LjL> and you think not discussing security helps keep it?
[16:48] <AlanBell> the package should install and run, and we can tell people where the man page is and other documentation
[16:48] <LjL> AlanBell: in #ubuntu. in #ubuntu-offtopic, i don't see why we can't also talk about security.
[16:48] <EvilResistance> i'm not saying security can't be discussed
[16:49] <EvilResistance> my only concern is with my historic monitoring of #Ubuntu channels and what the discussions of aircrack produce
[16:49]  * EvilResistance has seen questions regarding it in #ubuntu and all other ubuntu channels dealt with negatively (in general)
[16:49] <LjL> well i don't think we should go beyond instructions on installing it and reaching the manpage *in #ubuntu*
[16:49] <LjL> but it's not #ubuntu we're talking about
[16:50] <LjL> in fact i was the one who asked to take the discussion out of #ubuntu
[16:50] <EvilResistance> <ubottu> Some topics are controversial and often end in negativity. Take care on subjects like war, race, religion, politics, gender, sexuality, drugs, potentially illegal activities and suicide. The topics are not banned; stating your position is ok, but trolling, baiting, hostility or repetition are not. If you are asked to stop, do so politely. Disputes to !appeals, please adhere to !freenode Policy and the !Cod
[16:50] <EvilResistance> eOfConduct
[16:50] <EvilResistance> indeed
[16:50] <EvilResistance> but while i quote ubottu here...
[16:50] <EvilResistance> i point at "potentially illegal activities"
[16:50] <EvilResistance> (that's !o4o btw)
[16:50] <LjL> i point at "this topics are not banned"
[16:50] <LjL> these*
[16:51] <LjL> also it's an interesting issue you raise
[16:51] <LjL> what is a "potentially" illegal activity?
[16:51] <LjL> should we not talk about knives because "potentially" they can be used to kill people, other than cutting vegetables?
[16:52] <LjL> i'd much rather that factoid said "illegal activities"
[16:52] <AlanBell> then we get into a jurisdiction debate
[16:52] <EvilResistance> i think that potentially illegal activites should at the least cover topics such as hacking, cracking wifi security, etc.
[16:52] <LjL> well
[16:52] <LjL> anyway
[16:52] <topyli> i think it refers to different legislations around the world. it *can* be taken to mean aircrack tutorials
[16:52] <EvilResistance> namely because those can be considered illegal activities
[16:52] <LjL> using aircrack is not a "potentially illegal activity"
[16:52] <EvilResistance> hence why i bring this up here
[16:53] <LjL> cracking networks is a "potentially illegal activity"
[16:53] <topyli> aircrack is certainly legal, breaking someone's wifi keys may be
[16:53] <topyli> right
[16:53] <AlanBell> anyhow, already if you are uncomfortable with a discussion you can ask them to stop, and expect them to do so politely
[16:53] <LjL> but anyway don't worry, dexter is already scaring the guy away
[16:53] <topyli> heh
[16:55] <LjL> AlanBell: eh i don't agree with that either, if you're trolling, baiting, being hostile or repeating, then you must stop when asked, but otherwise, should i really stop discussing anything just because someone arbitrarily decides i should?
[16:56] <Tm_T> approach aircrack discussion similarly to torrent discussion: you help people to use them for good (distributing Ubuntu for example in case of torrents) but make full stop if there's any indication to questionable activities
[16:56] <Tm_T> or something
[16:59] <LjL> now, slander and libel - those are things that should definitely be disallowed.
[17:02] <mneptok> i'm a US gun owner. i'll always side with, "do not punish the tool because some people choose to wield it wrongly."
[17:03] <mneptok> aircrack can have legitimate uses. i think discussion of the package and how to install and get basic usage should be allowed. no one is forced to participate, and the topic is never allowed to veer into actual illegal/morally questionable ground.
[17:05] <topyli> well we have many packages that can be used illegally and/or "wrong"
[17:06] <mneptok> exactly.
[17:07] <mneptok> if the MPAA or RIAA read this channel's logs with the same regularity as some, they'd be /join-ing about now to discuss BitTorrent
[17:07] <Tm_T> indeed
[17:08] <topyli> which would be nice. it's about time they learned to use it!
[18:01] <LjL> someone please examine this pastebin carefully  http://pastebin.com/Fzs9Dj3Z and tell me if they're thinking what i'm thinking
[18:30] <AlanBell> LjL: if it just isn't executable it should say permission denied rather than file not found
[18:32] <LjL> AlanBell: yeah, but also, bash says "No such file or directory" for me, not "File or directory doesn't exist", and certainly not "Filee or directory doesn't exist"
[18:32] <LjL> maybe i see evil where there's none but...
[18:33] <AlanBell> chkrootkit would be my next command, yes
[18:38] <topyli> maybe the user just doesn't know how to copy/paste from a terminal, or maybe they translated from another language
[18:38] <LjL> hm
[19:57] <LjL> @mark #ubuntu-offtopic Masters Using much-less-than-acceptable epiteths for someone
[20:01] <LjL> @mark #ubuntu-offtopic I've had enough of dexter, he constantly provokes people, and accuses people assuming they're always acting in bad faith. Next time he's like this, he's getting a ban.
[20:04] <Flannel> You just marked "I've"
[20:05] <pangolin> heh
[20:32] <LjL> oh :(
[21:03] <dax> LjL: "How much is it eir and how much is it ubottu?" => based on when we started doing ubottu poking, started doing eir poking, and when those stats go down, I wouldn't give much credit to ubottu's pokings.
[21:04] <Tm_T> dax: ubottu does poking in private, I think that's the real difference
[21:04] <dax> "11:56:22 <AlanBell> improving eir and contributing back enhancements to freenode is an appealing concept, but fewer bots seems like a less complicated architecture" => I strongly agree with this, especially since I looked at the eir bug list and the majority of them are either irrelevant to upstream or things we'd consider not a bug :\
[21:05] <dax> Tm_T: ubottu's poking was ignored is the difference I saw. Several very banful operators completely disregarded it.
[21:05] <dax> plus unremoved FloodBot bans were a problem
[21:07] <dax> and this: "<topyli> afaik eir also has handy autoremove timeouts, which ubottu doesn't" is essentially what brought the banlist size down anyway, not notifications, imho
[21:08] <dax> That's the main feature we wanted when eir was added, and if ubottu did it instead (on an opt-in basis) that'd adequately cover it, imho
[21:08] <Tm_T> dax: yu, I think why ubottu's nags were ignored is because they were private
[21:09] <dax> less annoying public nagging might also be nice, but I don't know what y'all consider less annoying (since notices don't annoy me)
[23:56] <trinitas> LjL: my grounded time is up!!
[23:57] <trinitas> sitll banned :/
[23:58] <trinitas> hello??