[20:13] <guntbert> some remarks about the upgrade process: the user is asked (several times) if he want to keep/replace certain config files. There is no way to know when those questions will pop up - makes the upgrade last a lot longer than necessary unless I watch it all the time - against what package would I file a bug in this case?
[20:15] <MrChrisDruif> I think there isn't a clear cut answer for that. I guess all packages which got new config files?
[20:16] <MrChrisDruif> Then again, I'm no developer.
[20:17] <MrChrisDruif> I think I'd go for update-manager, because you the "end-user" got a problem with the upgrade progress guntbert
[20:18] <guntbert> MrChrisDruif: will do, thx for the advice (finding the right package is sometimes the hardest part of a good bug report :)
[20:19] <MrChrisDruif> No probs.
[20:44] <guntbert> on a totally different topic: what might be the right place/situation where the ubuntu gods (iow mark shuttleworth) would be really listening to the concerns about unity-lens-shopping being opt-out instead of opt-in (as it should be)
[20:46] <guntbert> I read his blog and the discussion there, and he seems not to hear what many are talking about
[20:49] <IdleOne> I don't think that his response would be any different if you wrote a letter or sent him an email.
[20:49] <MrChrisDruif> He has his talks on IRC once a month I think. But talking to Canonical staff also worth your time.
[20:49] <MrChrisDruif> jono_; ^
[20:50] <IdleOne> guntbert: there is a Ask Mark session at 10:00UTC on the 25th
[20:50] <IdleOne> tomorrow*
[20:50] <IdleOne> I am sure he will get many questions about it then
[20:54] <guntbert> IdleOne: MrChrisDruif: I was not so concerned about throwing my "very special" voice into the melee - and contacting him personally about this was mot my intention - where is that session held?
[20:54] <IdleOne> in #ubuntu-classroom http://is.gd/8rtIi |
[20:54] <IdleOne> the times on the calendar are UTC
[20:58] <guntbert> IdleOne: thx, I'll have to read the logs - lesson time :-)
[20:59] <IdleOne> same here, that will be at 6:00AM my time and i don't think I will be awake
[21:00] <MrChrisDruif> Noon, I'm at work at that time ^_^
[21:03] <jono_> guntbert, hey
[21:03] <jono_> Mark is well aware of the concerns, I can assure youi
[21:03] <jono_> he reads the blogs, discussions, and mailing list threads
[21:04] <guntbert> hey jono_ : I am sure he is aware, but his responses didn't sound as if he really had listened
[21:04] <jono_> guntbert, how so?
[21:05] <jono_> I think he responded appropriately, he just disagreed with much of the concern
[21:06] <guntbert> well in the blog he didn't adress the opt-out vs opt-in policy at all, and the "we have root" was just outrageous in my opinion
[21:06] <jono_> guntbert, to be fair, his point about root was simply a point about trust
[21:06] <jono_> Ubuntu developers do have root...packages run as root
[21:07] <jono_> he was making the point that it is fair for our users to trust Ubuntu developers
[21:07] <jono_> as we have always had root packages and this trust has always served our users well
[21:07] <jono_> guntbert, in terms of the opt out thing, this was address in Cristian Parrino's post
[21:07] <jono_> http://blog.canonical.com/2012/10/12/searching-in-the-dash-in-ubuntu-12-10-an-update/
[21:08]  * guntbert hadn't seen that post yet
[21:08] <IdleOne> The we have root comment was meant to be cheaky
[21:08] <guntbert> jono_: to trust someone
[21:09] <jono_> IdleOne, indeed
[21:09] <guntbert> jono_: to trust someone not to mess my system is a completely different sort of trust than to trust them with my data
[21:09] <IdleOne> it was not meant to be literal, language barriers can make it difficult to grasp the humour that was intended.
[21:10] <jono_> guntbert, right, and I agree, but the point he made was that Ubuntu is built on a foundation of trust, and if we have managed to handle that trust well for eight years, it should provide some reassurance to our users
[21:10] <IdleOne> guntbert: although you do have a firm grasp of the English language I believe that some of the more suttle humour may still escape you.
[21:10] <jono_> guntbert, if you don't like the feature, switch it off
[21:10] <jono_> there is a button
[21:10] <jono_> it was definitely a tongue in cheek comment
[21:10] <IdleOne> subtle*
[21:11] <jono_> no doubt, and I think you raise a good point, IdleOne, about the subtlety sometimes being lost
[21:11] <IdleOne> jono_: I think Mark is often misunderstood, he does IMO have a special sense of humour
[21:11] <jono_> IdleOne, I agree
[21:11] <guntbert> it is too late for me today to go into a deeper discussion - but jono_ you last remark (off-button) touches exactly my main concern: opt-out vs opt.in
[21:12] <MrChrisDruif> IdleOne; subtle humour gets lost without the non-verbal part. =)
[21:13] <IdleOne> guntbert: I agree that the shopping lens should be an opt-in, BUT that would mean less users would get to see it. making it an opt-out feature at least allows the user to see it one time.
[21:13] <IdleOne> MrChrisDruif: true, text is not always the best medium for humour
[21:13] <MrChrisDruif> =D
[21:13] <jono_> guntbert, was nice chatting
[21:14] <jono_> have a nice evening
[21:14] <guntbert> IdleOne: true, but the standard rules for privacy and data protection require just that: "offer it", promote it - but let people opt-in
[21:15] <guntbert> jono_: thx for listening - have a nice time too