[00:58] <bazhang> * [Sav1or] (~savior@c-68-35-103-209.hsd1.nm.comcast.net): Unknown
[00:58] <bazhang> doing the !danger command and telling people it will speed up their computers
[00:59] <bazhang> seems like haylo is instigating this as well
 im providing a important lesson to the uneducated about irc and linux
[04:26] <pangolin> @mark #ubuntu vato_ ~vato@pool-173-62-218-173.phlapa.fios.verizon.net user joined channel to vent and complain about Unity, bad language/rage quit.
[05:45] <flowerpot> FYI, user testteed, who is currently in #ubuntu, is sending unsolicited messages with spam: <testteed> Find movies, music, games, applications and more using IRC www.4xdcc.info
[05:46] <flowerpot> Please tell him to stop or remove him.
[05:46] <flowerpot> (privately, not in chat)
[05:46] <flowerpot> (that is, he's sending the messages privately, not in chat)
[05:46] <pangolin> he's been banned
[05:47] <flowerpot> thank you
[06:13] <pangolin> umm, is this true ^^
[06:17] <Unit193> Read just a bit up, it's been getting bigger all day without a single new ban
[06:17] <Unit193> (In #kubuntu)
[06:18] <pangolin> yeah I noticed
[06:18] <pangolin> bots are acting funny
[06:18] <Unit193> Always are
[10:28] <bazhang> got him in PM
[11:21] <Tm_T> Guest21792: hi
[13:29] <LjL> can i just +m #ubuntu? it's being so silly and offtopic i don't even know.
[13:35] <bazhang> LjL, zenon? he was a bit silly earlier as well
[13:36] <LjL> zenon among others, but he's not even among the ones getting the most on my nerves
[13:36] <bazhang> mintman seems to have part of it as well
[13:37] <bazhang> err +been
[13:37] <LjL> yes, and qwertz
[15:05] <oCean> ikonia: is the wine ppa really that harmful?
[15:05] <ikonia> no, the gimp one
[15:06] <ikonia> I'm sure the wine one isn't great either, but I said that problem was the gimp PPA, and shock horror, he was using the gimp PPA
[15:06] <oCean> Maybe we should be more clear on the ppa warnings then, more specific I mean
[15:06] <ikonia> how
[15:06] <oCean> I mean ppa's are suggested all the time, in #u
[15:06] <ikonia> I warn against them
[15:07] <ikonia> I think they are a terrible idea and uncontrolled for people to just break peoples machines with sloppy design and thought out
[15:07] <ikonia> just fools "upgrading" things to the latest version with no consideration
[15:07] <oCean> I do too, many ignore our warnings, and suggest ppa's the next time
[15:07] <ikonia> I warn people not to use them all the time and pull people up blindly recommending them
[15:07] <ikonia> I don't think we do a good job by recommending PPA's in #ubuntu,
[15:07] <ikonia> I feel pretty strong about it,
[15:09] <oCean> There is still this thin line between what is "supported" (in the channel) and what is not, but we might be more explicit when it comes to recommending/using PPA's
[15:10] <ikonia> so, I don't think it's a thin line in this case
[15:10] <oCean> I mean, we tell others "don't just suggest google", we might as well say "don't suggest PPA's"
[15:10] <ikonia> PPAs are totally uncontrolled (only things like the KDE PPA are quality)
[15:10] <ikonia> may want to take it up with the new council
[15:10] <ikonia> I took it up with the old one and got fed up of complaining about it
[15:10] <ikonia> so just dropped it
[15:11] <oCean> ikonia: there are only few who can recognize if it's qualty ppa or not
[15:11] <oCean> I make it an agenda item
[15:11] <ikonia> oCean: I %150 agree
[15:11] <ikonia> but I'm tired of banging the drum
[15:11] <oCean> that's a lot :)
[15:12] <ikonia> the aim of the game is to help the users, that includes sometimes protecting them from people like GTRsdk who make terrible PPA software
[15:13] <ikonia> there are other quality software builds that have no consideration for the dependencies they are changing and the long term effects on the systems
[15:13] <ikonia> that is just as bad as the poor quality PPA's being created
[15:13] <ikonia> it's too easy to create a PPA and make it look like "official" quality software as it's hosted on launchpad
[15:13] <ikonia> it needs to stop in my view, but I'm also fed up of being complained at for daring to critique it
[15:17] <oCean> ikonia: it's on the agenda now, I'm curious to see in which direction the discussion will go
[15:17] <ikonia> best of luck with it, I hope there is something more positive we can do other than "warn" people
[15:34]  * popey thinks that the wine ppa is probably one of the least worst ppas you could have chosen to look at
[15:35] <popey> and also things ppas are loads better than people installing random debs built from alien'd RPMs and dodgy checkinstall builds that used to be all over the forums before PPAs existed
[15:35] <popey> *thinks
[15:37] <oCean> popey: sure, but how to distinguish between ppa's being recommended, if you don't know their quality
[15:38] <popey> I would imagine that's hard for non-experts, but I don't think that's hard for people in this channel to figure out
[15:38] <popey> I mean, take the wine one. It's run buy _the_ guy who is clueful about wine in Ubuntu
[15:39] <popey> who also happens to be on the CC so we'd hope he's made of the right stuff
[15:39] <popey> then there's the firefox PPAs (probably less relavent now) run by Chris Coulson, who maintains firefox for ubuntu for canonical
[15:39] <oCean> popey: so every time I see a ppa being recommended, I have to check if it's actually useful/not harmful?
[15:39] <popey> maybe we should have a list of 'PPA's that are 'approved' or 'recommended' or that we expect to be high quality
[15:39] <Myrtti> I've managed to avoid PPA's on my main installation, and I've had no desire to go study all PPA's under the sun... I suppose I need to catch up then.
[15:39] <popey> maybe PPAs should have a voting system +1 / -1
[15:40] <Myrtti> that would help
[15:40] <ikonia> it wouldn't
[15:40] <ikonia> works for me +1
[15:40] <ikonia> as anyone can do +1
[15:40] <ikonia> rather than understand what it does and +1
[15:40] <popey> well, I didnt go into any detail about the mechanics of the +1 / -1
[15:40] <popey> it was merely a suggestion with no meat, so no need to dismiss it out of hand ikonia
[15:41] <popey> there are metrics other than people pressing a button that could potentially be used
[15:41] <popey> such as 'proportion of build failures to build successes'
[15:41] <popey> or 'frequency of updates'
[15:41] <popey> or 'number of people on the team'
[15:42] <Tm_T> popey: build failures are poor metrics for safety/quality of packaging
[15:42] <popey> most of this could be programmatically extracted to find out whether a PPA is 'good' or 'bad'
[15:42] <popey> again, these are just suggestions
[15:42] <Tm_T> yup
[15:42] <Tm_T> some quality stamp on good ppa would be good
[15:42] <popey> I'm not suggesting we argue every point. merely that a) it is possible to have a stable system based on content from PPAs, and b) PPAs should have a score/rating
[15:43]  * popey files a bug in lp
[15:44] <oCean> right, like a rating system will prevent others from recommending or actually installing?
[15:44] <oCean> there are tons of programs rated poorly for running with wine, yet we have lots of users asking for support for those programs
[15:45] <oCean> we're not in the channels to get a user's system "somewhat" to work
[15:45] <Tm_T> oCean: no rating should ever prevent users from installing
[15:46] <oCean> Tm_T: in that case, a rating on ppa's is not sufficient
[15:46] <Tm_T> except perhaps malware stamp
[15:46] <oCean> a support channel should stamp "DONT INSTALL" on PPA's
[15:46] <Tm_T> oCean: on all ppa's?
[15:47] <oCean> Tm_T: again, how to distinguish between the lot of them being recommended?
[15:47] <oCean> Tm_T: we explictely say "don't build from source", but hardly ever warn when PPA's are being recommended
[15:47] <oCean> PPA's are a risk
[15:47] <oCean> period
[15:47] <Tm_T> oCean: I warn every time I recommend non-"official" ppa
[15:48] <oCean> what's that?
[15:48] <Tm_T> oCean: kubuntu has ppa's that are used for providing newest stable KDE, for example
[15:49] <popey> bug 926720
[15:49] <Tm_T> oCean: I'm strongly against us deciding to yell "don't do it" if someone is going to use the stable release ppa from Kubuntu team
[15:49] <Tm_T> those same packages do appear to ubuntu-backports after the time period
[15:50] <Tm_T> same with firefox ppa
[15:51] <Tm_T> basicly, a ppa that is maintained by the same team that provides ubuntu packages AND is meant for general consumption, those we can recommend
[15:51] <oCean> I'm not sure how a bug is going to help us in the discussion. I put the item on the IRCC agenda, I think we should agree on how handle this.
[15:53] <oCean> Tm_T: I would say only packages that have gone through same thorough QA as packages from regular repositories. Is there any way to assure that for any ppa?
[16:03] <AlanBell> I am thinking we need a general "supporters guide" document on what we do and don't recommend (and sometimes in what order)
[16:04] <popey> +1
[16:04] <popey> daubers had a go at writing one
[16:04] <AlanBell> he did indeed
[16:05] <Tm_T> oCean: we (kubuntu) do the QA before moving the packages to general consumption ppa
[16:05] <AlanBell> so repo > PPA > random .deb > compile from source
[16:05] <pangolin> I prefer compile from source before random .deb
[16:05] <oCean> AlanBell: why not make a bald statement and say only official repos are supported?
[16:06] <pangolin> you don't know what you are getting froma random .deb
[16:06] <oCean> 10913 active PPA's and most of 'em crap
[16:06] <oCean> randomly recommended in #u
[16:06] <AlanBell> pangolin: ok, .deb published by upstream (not by some other random person)
[16:07] <Tm_T> oCean: well, I'd say that official repos are supported + those repositories that meet the criteria I defined before
[16:07] <oCean> Tm_T: that's great, there are only very few of suck PPA's
[16:07] <oCean> eh
[16:07] <Tm_T> such?
[16:07] <oCean> such*
[16:07] <oCean> hehe
[16:07] <Tm_T> !ppa
[16:07] <pangolin> why not just keep it simple. if it is in the repos we support it.
[16:08] <oCean> pangolin: +1
[16:08] <Tm_T> pangolin: there's reasons why some ppa's are supported
[16:08] <pangolin> and "official" PPA's
[16:08] <AlanBell> pangolin: sure, but we can support people adding a ppa, just not the consequences so much
[16:08] <Tm_T> pangolin: much better (;
[16:09] <pangolin> thing is that if you help someone add a PPA you are also by extension going to have to support the packages from the PPA
[16:09] <Tm_T> yup
[16:10] <pangolin> which takes us back to where we started
[16:10] <pangolin> what to support?
[16:10] <popey> that takes us back further
[16:10] <Tm_T> well, if you make it clear that a certain ppa is not supported, the choice is in the user
[16:10] <popey> what does 'support' mean
[16:10] <popey> and who are 'we'
[16:10] <oCean> The thing is, that lots of users *think* they need a newer version
[16:10] <Tm_T> oCean: that has nothing to do with ppa's though
[16:11] <pangolin> Tm_T: then we have to contend with, why that PPA yes and the other PPA no?
[16:11] <oCean> Tm_T: most definitely
[16:11] <oCean> Tm_T: in #u there are always users asking, hey I have package a-1.2.3, but I NEED a-1.3.x gimme, gimme
[16:12] <oCean> so another clueless users says, oh but there is a PPA for that!
[16:12] <Tm_T> pangolin: I find it simple, if it's maintained by the same team that provides the ubuntu packages, they support it and the ppa is for general consumption, then it's supported, no matter what we say
[16:12] <popey> thats only one use case of many oCean
[16:12] <oCean> popey: in #u it is  a  very common case
[16:12] <popey> sure, its a common one
[16:12] <Tm_T> oCean: then someone with clue do ask "why?"
[16:13] <oCean> popey: don't get me wrong, I use PPA's, but I know how to deal with the consequences of a broken system
[16:13] <Tm_T> you don't help them by saying "just don't", when you can ask what they really need
[16:13] <popey> so we need to better document how to fix a broken system?
[16:13] <popey> if you know how to do it and they don't there's knowledge transfer required
[16:13] <popey> not shutting down support
[16:13] <oCean> popey: gimp ppa makes it impossible to upgrade your system.
[16:13] <oCean> how to go from there?
[16:14] <popey> thats a specific question
[16:14] <popey> I'm talking in general
[16:14] <oCean> popey: come on, ppa's are not support
[16:14] <popey> i can't parse that
[16:14] <oCean> PPA's are not an answer to a support question
[16:14] <popey> that entirely depends on the support question
[16:15] <Tm_T> I agree with popey on this
[16:15] <oCean> a support question is "wel, I'd like a newer version of.." or "Hi, I don't see package x in your repositories"
[16:15] <popey> 'tomboy is broken, and i need to see if its a patch in ubuntu that broke it, or if it's a problem upstream'
[16:15] <Tm_T> you're trying to make it black and white when it's not /:
[16:15] <popey> again you're using one specific example
[16:15] <popey> +1 Tm_T
[16:15] <Tm_T> oCean: then you ask why you need newer version etc
[16:16] <oCean> maybe it should be black/white
[16:16] <popey> maybe it should
[16:16] <pangolin> exactly because of that reason we can't define precisely what we support, because it isn't black and white
[16:16] <popey> lets discuss it
[16:16] <popey> rather than shutting the discussion down
[16:16] <oCean> Tm_T: so, the user gives a valid reason for the newer package
[16:16] <popey> its not always about newer
[16:16] <popey> sometimes it's about different
[16:16] <oCean> ok, different
[16:16] <oCean> fine
[16:16] <Tm_T> oCean: then I try help the user to get the best supported option
[16:16] <popey> i.e. a package compiled in a different way
[16:16] <oCean> sure, other compile options etc
[16:17] <Tm_T> oCean: and thell the user what the support on the specific option is
[16:17] <popey> Ok, I can detect that you're getting exasperated with me on this. it wasn't my intention to frustrate you, sorry oCean
[16:17] <oCean> Tm_T: the answer _could_ be: "sorry, we cannot help you with that"
[16:17] <popey> I am just putting forward a different perspective
[16:17] <popey> and it feels like I'm being shouted down
[16:17] <Tm_T> oCean: no
[16:17] <Tm_T> oCean: just, no, when we can help, we don't say that
[16:18] <pangolin> popey: I think the larger issue is not what to support but the inevitable discussion that happens when the helper is forced to tell the user, We don't support that.
[16:18] <oCean> FTR: I think there is nothing wrong with admitting every now and then, that ubuntu does not have a solution for everything
[16:18] <Tm_T> and really, I cannot see we can draw a clear line on this, as it's not black and white, it just isn't no matter how much I want it to be
[16:18] <Tm_T> oCean: I agree on that
[16:19] <oCean> popey: I'm sorry if I gave you that idea, I'm not frustrated
[16:19] <Tm_T> oCean: and when there's no option that we can support, I try help them to find the support elsewhere
[16:20] <oCean> Tm_T: an honest answer can be "you have to wait for the next release" or even "maybe another distribution is better suited for your needs"
[16:20] <Tm_T> sometimes it's simple "try asking in #foo", sometimes else
[16:20] <Tm_T> oCean: yes
[16:20] <Tm_T> oCean: but never blunt "we don't support that" without else
[16:20] <Tm_T> unless it's clear case and there's no options
[16:22] <pangolin> what brought this topic back to the surface anyway, another argument in #ubuntu ?
[16:22] <oCean> pangolin: another user not able to upgrade because of gimp ppa
[16:23] <pangolin> the upgrade process is supposed to disable any PPA's before starting the upgrade
[16:23] <pangolin> why wasn't it?
[16:24] <oCean> apparently during install of PPA something got broken, sorry don't have the details. Removing/disabling ppa did not help. ikonia say exact same case earlier
[16:24] <Tm_T> distro version upgrade, or normal update?
[16:24] <pangolin> my guess, it installs too many other packages that are needed by other parts of the system.
[16:24] <pangolin> making it impossible to upgrade
[16:25] <Tm_T> I wonder if this has been reported to the ppa maintainer
[16:25] <pangolin> probably not.
[16:25]  * Tm_T shakes their head
[16:26] <oCean> Tm_T: please don't tell me you expect me to contact the ppa maintainer?
[16:26] <pangolin> Tm_T: I have no idea. i try not to use PPA's and when I do I disable them soon as I installed what I needed. Sacrificing security but it is a risk i am aware of and only do on my systems
[16:27] <Tm_T> oCean: not necessarily you, no, but someone who uses the said ppa and knows what is the exact problem
[16:27] <oCean> And why would a ppa maintainer be worried about not being able to do a upgrade
[16:27] <oCean> the ppa is only there for the sake of the ppa
[16:27] <oCean> and _that_ is the issue
[16:27] <oCean> with ppa's
[16:27] <Tm_T> oCean: not all ppa's
[16:27] <Tm_T> oCean: and upgrade-blocking bugs have been in Ubuntu too, so it's not with ppa
[16:28] <Tm_T> ppa only that is
[16:28] <popey> pangolin: disabling the ppa during upgrades doesnt help if you have broken packages installed
[16:28] <pangolin> right but with upgrade blocking bugs from the repos can be reported and be fixed. with a PPA who knows if it will ever get fixed.
[16:29] <Tm_T> pangolin: depends on the ppa
[16:29] <popey> you can report them to the ppa owner
[16:29] <Tm_T> don't think them all the same
[16:29] <Tm_T> ppa is just a one type of repository, ppa has nothing to do with what it contains
[16:31] <pangolin> popey: exactly but are those broken packages from the PPA, some other source, who knows? which is why i think we should only support official repos.
[16:31] <popey> why dismiss a system just because it has a broken package?
[16:31] <pangolin> Tm_T: everything depends on something, but I am not willing to or even have the knowledge to start monitoring all PPA's to see what is "ok" and what "isn't"
[16:31] <popey> surely we could get them to do some analysis (dpkg -l, apt-cache policy etc) to find out what the actual problem is
[16:32] <oCean> oh come on
[16:32] <popey> what people seem to be saying is 'its a ppa, so no support from us, goodbye'
[16:32] <popey> nobody is suggesting you should have knowledge of every ppa pangolin
[16:32] <pangolin> not so rude like,  but essentially.
[16:33] <popey> why not give them a how-to guide to determine if the issue is the ppa rather than shut the door
[16:33] <Tm_T> pangolin: that's why I'm not suggesting that we monitor all ppa's
[16:33] <pangolin> Who decides what PPA's are ok then?
[16:33] <popey> pangolin: you're a step ahead here
[16:34] <oCean> popey: sure, we've helped users with their systems broken by a PPA
[16:34] <popey> out of interest which is the specific broken gimp ppa?
[16:34] <pangolin> probably the daily
[16:35] <pangolin> which would make most sense to me
[16:35] <popey> can you be more specific?
[16:35] <pangolin> I can't, speculating, sorry.
[16:35] <oCean> if, at the end of the day, the conclusion is "the PPA broke your system" the general sentiment is "in that case ubuntu sucks"
[16:35] <popey> because if we're sending people away based on 'probably' then there's an issue right there!
[16:35] <oCean> popey: I'm not saying we sent anyone away
[16:35] <popey> we should _know_ the issue is with that PPA before we make a judgement and send people packing
[16:36] <popey> ok
[16:36] <oCean> I'm saying "maybe we could have prevented this user from installing this ppa"
[16:36] <popey> I'm just trying to find out which ppa is the one that has been mentioned 3 times in this conversation to contact the person and see whats up with it and if it can be fixed
[16:36] <Tm_T> oCean: I actually don't care much what sentiment people get when things break, as that's not what we can control directly
[16:36] <oCean> Tm_T: I disagree
[16:36] <Tm_T> oCean: what we can do, is ensure our support channels function in their purpose, support, as that's the best way to make sure there's no need for such sentiment
[16:37] <oCean> Tm_T: I'd like to build positive sentiment by giving users a stable platform
[16:37] <Tm_T> oCean: me too
[16:37] <pangolin> you're suggesting #ubuntu change from Ubuntu support to general linux support
[16:37] <Tm_T> no I'm not
[16:38] <Tm_T> but I don't want to create some kind of "walled garden" thinking on this either, use ubuntu repositories only or get lost
[16:39] <Tm_T> hmh, maybe not the right term, but hopefully you get the idea
[16:41] <pangolin> When a new users joins the "official IRC support channel" there is an expectation from that user that they will be getting support. If we start to include some PPA's and exclude others we risk alienating those PPA maintainers, alienating users of the PPA. Strating flame wars in #ubuntu about how we suck because we don't support freedom. I think we should officially support the official repos only, doesn't mean we will tell people not to use P
[16:41] <pangolin> PA's but we can explain to them the risk of such and explain that they may not be able to find any help for it.
[16:42] <Tm_T> pangolin: how you are going to brush off the support from Kubuntu packages?
[16:42] <pangolin> kubuntu is an official derivative is it not?
[16:43] <Tm_T> yes
[16:43] <Tm_T> and its ppa is supported
[16:43] <pangolin> nothing to brush off
[16:43]  * popey adds that to the list of supported PPAs
[16:43] <pangolin> the ppa is supported by whom?
[16:43] <pangolin> by Canonical?
[16:43] <oCean> Tm_T: why are they in PPA's in the first place and not in general repos?
[16:43] <Tm_T> pangolin: us, kubuntu team
[16:45] <pangolin> honestly this topic is always exhausting to me.
[16:45] <Tm_T> oCean: because it takes long time to get packages to ubuntu-backports repository, they're released in ppa first
[16:45] <oCean> Apparently we're not going to agree on this any time soon. But this is a very important discussion, since it also touches the core of the issue that ubuntu/canonical is not capable of having a distribution without the need for PPA's
[16:45]  * pangolin will go with whatever the majority decides
[16:46] <oCean> Tm_T: backports, not main?
[16:46] <popey> Tm_T: didnt know that about kubuntu packages
[16:46] <Tm_T> oCean: bugfix releases goes to main I guess, but new feature releases
[16:47] <popey> oCean: that question actually doesnt make sense :D
[16:47] <popey> there is a backports 'main'
[16:47] <Tm_T> no, bah
[16:47] <popey> deb http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-backports main restricted universe multiverse
[16:47] <popey> :D
[16:48] <pangolin> don't forget the partner repo
[16:48] <oCean> dinner time, ttyl
[16:48] <popey> yup, and extras pangolin
[16:48] <popey> partner repo is likely to change soon
[16:48] <pangolin> heh
[16:49] <popey> this is why i find this discussion interesting. we ship stuff in partner and extras as well as the main repos
[16:50] <pangolin> is it safe to assume that all the packages in the 6? official repos are guaranteed to be safe? i.e. won't send your CC info to someone unknown
[16:50] <Tm_T> oh right, this https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kubuntu/UpdatesPolicy
[16:51]  * Tm_T is getting confused by all this
[16:54] <Tm_T> "Updates for Kubuntu releases which are due to go to Ubuntu Updates. Mostly KDE point releases." https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-ppa/+archive/ppa
[16:55] <Tm_T> and then there's "Backports of new versions of KDE and major KDE apps for Kubuntu which are either too large a change or not yet tested enough to go to Ubuntu Backports." https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-ppa/+archive/backports
[16:55] <Tm_T> both of these are supported in #kubuntu
[18:31] <Guest30981> hi.
[18:31] <Tm_T> hello Guest30981
[18:31] <Guest30981> I used the nickname pussylover on ubuntu
[18:31] <Guest30981> wich is not mine
[18:31] <Guest30981> and can't even change nick.
[18:31] <Guest30981> and i got auto-banned.
[18:32] <bioterror> I'm a cat person too
[18:32] <Guest30981> :D
[18:32] <Guest30981> so what should i do?
[18:32] <Tm_T> auto-banned?
[18:32] <Guest30981> i don't know
[18:32] <Guest30981> i'm muted.
[18:32] <Guest30981> but i didn't talk from first place
[18:33] <Guest30981> wich is odd
[18:33] <Alina> Hi all!
[18:33] <Guest30981> morning alina
[18:33] <Alina> here i can compalin?
[18:33] <Guest30981> [20:33] <Guest30981> .. [20:33] == Cannot send to channel: #ubuntu
[18:33] <Guest30981> you can
[18:34] <Guest30981> that's why it's ubuntu-ops?
[18:34] <Alina> why nick guest?
[18:34] <AlanBell> hi Alina
[18:34] <Alina> Ocean u here?
[18:34] <oCean> Alina: please hang on
[18:34] <Alina> hi
[18:35] <Guest30981> can you unmute me?
[18:35] <Guest30981> also let me change my name? :)
[18:35] <Guest30981> thanks.
[18:35] <Guest30981> I'd stick with Guest but it's itchy.
[18:35] <Guest30981> you know what i mean
[18:36] <oCean> Guest30981: there is nothing we do about your nicknames, well you cannot use a nick that conflicts with channel policy
[18:36] <AlanBell> Guest30981: I think you may need to leave #ubuntu to change nicks
[18:36] <Guest30981> having a nick about loving cats it's against policy? good job guys.
[18:36] <Alina> #ubuntu-ru Moderators kicking users without reason. just like it. They talkinh how schoolers. I think they childres
[18:37] <Alina> talking
[18:37] <Guest30981> they russian, sis.
[18:37] <Alina> they talk like children.
[18:37] <oCean> Alina: that is not something we can deal with, sorry
[18:37] <Alina> I too russian
[18:37] <Guest30981> I'm russian too :]
[18:37] <Alina> And why can?
[18:37] <oCean> Guest30981: we did nothing to make you change your nick
[18:38] <Guest30981> atleast unmute?
[18:38] <LjL> Guest30981: the mute will go away when you leave and rejoin. it happened because you changed your nick.
[18:38] <oCean> but yes, your original nick, the one you entered the channel with is not acceptable
[18:38] <Alina> !unmute Guest30981
[18:38] <broimfromafrika> thanks
[18:38] <Alina> And me? mY qustion?
[18:39] <broimfromafrika> have a nice day ops
[18:39] <broimfromafrika> u da best
[18:39] <oCean> Alina: as I said, we cannot help you with the -ru channel. Better try #ubuntu-irc channel
[18:39] <Alina> thx!
[18:40] <oCean> Alina: please remember to /part this channel
[18:40] <pangolin> broimfromafrika: if there is nothing else please part this channel.
[18:40] <Alina> ?
[18:41] <Alina> part of what?
[18:41] <oCean> Alina: part = leave this channel
[18:41] <oCean> Alina: see our topic
[18:41] <broimfromafrika> one sec
[18:41] <Alina> Why?
[18:42] <oCean> Alina: because we don't allow idlers
[18:42] <pangolin> Alina: because we don't allow users to idle in this channel
[18:42] <Alina> ok
[18:42] <Alina> thx!
[18:42] <Alina> bb
[18:44] <broimfromafrika> guys
[18:44] <broimfromafrika> what's the social channel on freenode?
[18:45] <pangolin> #defocus
[18:45] <pangolin> #freenode for network help
[18:45] <broimfromafrika> thanks
[18:45] <pangolin> please don't use this channel as a support service. thank you.
[19:23] <pangolin> zgr: hello, how can i help you?
[19:25] <pangolin> zgr: unless you have a reason for being here please don't idle in this channel.