[01:07] <AlanBell> anyone feel like testing and confirming bug 1087873
[04:07] <Chaos7Theory> Quiet.
[16:06] <yellabs> hello all you good people
[16:07] <yellabs> i am looking at the dash shopping lens, trying to understand how it works, and to see if there are options to make it better, and more acceptable ..
[16:08] <yellabs> are there any new directions taken on this issue that are new at the moment ?
[16:08] <yellabs> seen the bug reports and its buzzing all over the web
[16:08] <yellabs> privacy wise that is..
[16:09] <yellabs> any one has some insights on the topic ?
[16:13] <Zael> sudo apt-get --purge remove
[16:13] <yellabs> yeah , thats an option too
[16:14] <Zael> sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop
[16:15] <Zael> yus
[16:16] <yellabs> also possible
[16:16] <Zael> doesn't affect me.. unity doesn't even work with my radeon 5670
[16:17] <yellabs> i see
[16:19] <Zael> that's what made me red faced to begin with and i downloaded the Xubuntu iso... then i hear about this amazon mess.. and that's like a nail right there, right in the coffin... so i'm like forget normal ubuntu... long live Xubuntu!!
[16:20]  * Zael shakes a pitchfork at it
[16:20] <yellabs> i am looking for some idea to change it for the good ..
[16:21] <yellabs> but you dont use the dash , so you dont know how it works
[16:21] <yellabs> i am testing it a bit right now
[16:21] <Zael> it's simple... make it default off and either during installation of ubuntu or on the first use of unity's search make the user aware of it and give them the option to turn it on if they wish
[16:22] <Zael> i heard it still sends stuff, even when you turn it off though
[16:23] <yellabs> i can see what happens , using etherape
[16:23] <yellabs> very visual .. ;P
[16:24] <popey> Zael, can you back that up with facts?
[16:24] <yellabs> i can try right now
[16:24] <popey> if it still sends data when switched off, that's a bug, and should be filed as such
[16:24] <Zael> what would i need to back up again?
[16:24] <yellabs> if you like
[16:25] <Zael> oh, i just heard it.. i don't know if it's true.. yellabs could probably tell you
[16:25] <popey> ok, so rumour. fair enough
[16:25] <popey> I heard it eats your first born child.
[16:25] <IdleOne> popey: unity-lens-github doesn't follow the privacy flag
[16:25] <Zael> i heard it's friends with steve ballmer
[16:26] <popey> IdleOne, file a bug against that lens?
[16:26] <IdleOne> bug 1087873
[16:26] <IdleOne> AlanBell: already did
[16:27] <yellabs> popey , did you see the image idea ?
[16:27] <yellabs> by the way i filed several bugs
[16:27] <popey> excellent
[16:27] <IdleOne> Zael: this channel is for real discussion, casual but real facts.
[16:27] <popey> yellabs, what image?
[16:27] <yellabs> http://imgur.com/E1dHt
[16:27] <yellabs> its just an idea
[16:27] <yellabs> but maybe an option
[16:27] <Zael> IdleOne: something's wrong with your face?
[16:27] <yellabs> for the lens
[16:28] <IdleOne> jokes are good, but when in the middle of a serious topic it doesn't really help to make silly comments.
[16:28] <Zael> k, gotcha
[16:28] <popey> yellabs, the home lens is functionally what your globe thing does
[16:29] <popey> the whole point of the home lens (the dash) is that it searches _everything_ its possible to search, online and offline
[16:29] <yellabs> hmm, if i see home , i think its searching my home
[16:29] <yellabs> if i see globe, i know its searching the globe
[16:29] <yellabs> see the difference ?
[16:30] <yellabs> tested the off setting, its indeed off and not connecting to the canonical search server
[16:30] <Zael> i suppose it indexes
[16:31] <Zael> i remember privacy issues arose from similar circumstances in windows, when it started adding indexing and online searching
[16:31] <AlanBell> I am actually having a bit of a discussion about this on Google Plus now
[16:31] <yellabs> its buzzing all over the web
[16:32] <yellabs> but somehow some try to ignore the issue
[16:32] <AlanBell> no, a load of hype is buzzing all over the web :)
[16:32] <yellabs> :P
[16:32] <AlanBell> would be rather smashing if someone could confirm bug 1087873
[16:32] <Zael> yellabs: to some people, it's not an issue... i would wager those same people are the ones that freely publish their real information and activities all over social networking sites
[16:33] <yellabs> LOL
[16:33] <AlanBell> to me it wasn't an issue until they added the privacy control
[16:33] <yellabs> did it wake up something ?
[16:34] <AlanBell> well it doesn't work
[16:34] <Zael> even if the feature is defaulted on... there should be a large effort for awareness being made
[16:34] <Zael> like a real, in your face, warning on first use
[16:35] <AlanBell> https://lists.launchpad.net/unity-dev/msg00536.html
[16:35] <IdleOne> The issue IMHO is not if the feature should exist or not, it exists and is not going away. The issue is not about how some people handle thier privacy comapared to others, we all have different ideas about what we consider to be private. The issue is what would be the best way to handle it so that everyone can feel comfortable enough to use the feature if they wanted to use it.
[16:35] <IdleOne> compared*
[16:35] <AlanBell> yes, I agree with that
[16:35] <Zael> i agree, and be aware of it's existence
[16:36] <AlanBell> http://people.ubuntu.com/~alanbell/Privacy.png
[16:36] <AlanBell> did that mockup earlier, I would like to see that in the privacy dialog, so the user can decide which lenses get to see the dash home searches
[16:36] <AlanBell> then you don't have to uninstall the lenses you don't want to see all searches
[16:37] <yellabs> like the control over search engines in your browser ?
[16:37] <IdleOne> AlanBell: that looks like a sensible idea. It should be user opt in on a lens by lens choice.
[16:37] <yellabs> full control over the lenses ?
[16:38] <popey> AlanBell, I'd like a two-step thing. one option which says "it can appear in the dash" and another which says "..and it can go online"
[16:38] <IdleOne> which means the lens specifications need to have some required global rules to make sure they all follow at the minimum the privacy flag
[16:39] <Zael> i agree, popey
[16:39] <yellabs> hmm, the globe icon with checkbox ?
[16:40] <yellabs> :)
[16:40] <yellabs> include online search option ..
[16:42] <AlanBell> popey: we have no technical means of preventing a process from going online
[16:42] <AlanBell> we would have to do apparmor or something to do that
[16:43] <IdleOne> AlanBell: perhaps a little box at the bottom with a description of a selected lens explaining what each lens does and what data will be sent over the wire if enabled.
[16:43] <AlanBell> I don't want to propose something that is hard or impossible
[16:43] <AlanBell> yeah, the .lens file could be extended with a few fields like "this lens would like to see global searches" and "this lens sends queries off the local machine"
[16:44] <AlanBell> or "this lens sends queries to an intranet server
[16:44] <AlanBell> that use-case is distinct from sending data to consumer websites I feel.
[16:45] <IdleOne> basically give the user as much info as possible so they make the most informed decision possible (without cluttering up the window of course)
[16:46] <yellabs> just an tick box , include online search , is not an option ? is it possible ?
[16:46] <Zael> AlanBell: protocol wrap it or run it as a different user with changed ip tables
[16:46] <Zael> that's messy though
[16:47] <yellabs> have to eat , great that there is thought about the issue, i feel there will be an very good idea for inprovement !
[16:47] <AlanBell> I guess, like tsocks does
[16:47] <Zael> yes
[16:48] <AlanBell> yellabs: a tickbox is easy. The code that the tickbox is attached to is less easy :)
[17:01] <yellabs> i see
[17:05] <yellabs> can it not be connected to the off switch thats used in privacy settings right now ?
[17:06] <yellabs> that already coded , so you dont have to do it twice
[17:07] <yellabs> all you need is the tickbox to be connected to the toggle switch of privacy settings.. ?
[17:08] <AlanBell> yeah, that one is the problem I have
[17:08] <yellabs> ah , okey
[17:08] <AlanBell> each scope has to have code in it to check the state of the checkbox
[17:09] <AlanBell> so privacy is opt-in for scope authors
[17:11] <yellabs> hmm
[17:14] <yellabs> it needs to be organised i guess, obligatory code to go before any other code for the checkbox , if that would be the solution
[17:20] <yellabs> how does the on of privacy switch work now ?
[17:21] <AlanBell> like this http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~mhall119/onehundredscopes/unity-locoteams-scope/revision/4
[17:21] <AlanBell> you need to add that code to every scope that you want to respect the flag
[17:22] <AlanBell> only a few lines, however it isn't documented and it is utterly optional
[17:23] <yellabs> wow thats short
[17:24] <yellabs> :P
[17:25] <AlanBell> yeah, the checkbox sets com.canonical.Unity.Lenses/remote-content-search to 'None'
[17:25] <AlanBell> the scopes we ship by default check for that and turn themselves off
[17:25] <AlanBell> any other scope won't check and won't turn itself off
[17:29] <yellabs> so there is no group of people that check the scope's for good behavior ?
[17:29] <yellabs> before they land in ubuntu ?
[17:30] <yellabs> or , some one assigned to repackage them to include the code of the on / off option, maybe even automated somehow ?
[17:30] <yellabs> ( some one ) read 'team `
[17:33] <yellabs> hmm , thinking
[17:33] <yellabs> scope is running on top of ?
[17:36] <yellabs> difficult . for sure
[17:44] <yellabs> i thought it would be better like this ,
[17:44] <yellabs> http://imgur.com/E1dHt
[17:44] <yellabs> but i guess, that hits the same problem ..
[17:44] <yellabs> cant use the on / off option because of the design right now
[17:45] <yellabs> any way, i appreciate the hard work you folks put into it, and thanks for the insight ..
[17:46] <yellabs> in a few day's i have some more time, and will look into it too, although i am more of an desktop user .. who know i might come up with something
[17:46] <yellabs> :)
[17:50] <yellabs> maybe the query should be sent through a verification system, and the verification can be turned on / of , so the query is rejected when toggle switch to off, but thats back to scratch, wich does not seem the way to go
[17:50] <yellabs> any way, take care you all , see you next time
[17:50] <yellabs> thanks for your time
[17:50] <yellabs> :)
[18:00]  * yellabs background 
[18:05] <AlanBell> yellabs: one would hope the Application Review Board would be checking scopes to see if they implement the privacy flag, however I have no information to suggest that they do, and I have bug 1087873 to suggest that they don't
[18:08] <yellabs> ok
[18:10] <yellabs> reading it
[18:16] <yellabs> read it..
[18:17] <yellabs> work to be done.. (y)
[20:57] <u01010> what is different between Linux and freebsd?
[20:58] <guntbert> u01010: please keep in mind that this channel is for ubuntu related discussion - try in #ubuntu-offtopic or in ##linux
[20:59] <u01010> there is tools in fedora like system-config... or system-network can i user them in ubuntu?
[21:00] <guntbert> u01010: no
[21:00] <u01010> is there any alternative ?
[21:02] <guntbert> u01010: The Ubuntu Manual will help you become familiar with everyday tasks such as surfing the web, listening to music and scanning documents. With an emphasis on easy to follow instructions, it is suitable for all levels of experience. http://ubuntu-manual.org/
[21:03] <u01010> gnutbert: I need this tools in server with out GUI
[21:04] <guntbert> u01010: are you using ubuntu-server? then you will find support in #ubuntu-server
[22:41] <orlok> Chaos7Theory: Have you looked at metasploit or similar?
[22:42] <Chaos7Theory> Metasploit?
[22:42] <orlok> Chaos7Theory: Its a framework for utilising exploits to deliver payloads
[22:42] <Chaos7Theory> orlok: In layman's terms? :X
[22:43] <orlok> Chaos7Theory: Help people take a theoretical software vulnrability and add the payload of their choice to it so the vulnrable system runs code of the attackers choosing, in other words, 0wns the server
[22:45] <Chaos7Theory> So whitehat hackers? I'm not really that experienced of a programmer really yet.
[22:46] <orlok> Chaos7Theory: yes, the tool is developed by "legitimate" security researchers
[22:47] <orlok> Chaos7Theory: There are unvountable linux systems on the internet that are "infected" however, and its nothing to do with any software flaw however, only bad management
[22:48] <orlok> uncountable, even
[22:48] <orlok> Chaos7Theory: bad passwor choice is much more of an issue for any linux or unix like system on the internet (combined with bad management)
[22:49] <Chaos7Theory> orlok: Well, I'm also reading through the wiki page and a lot of the arguments hold water as to why even if Linux were more popular, there'd still have to be many hurdles to jump over before a virus can propogate.
[22:50] <orlok> Chaos7Theory: Yup. Bad passwords are easier to find and compromise than a remote root exploit
[22:50] <Chaos7Theory> One of the main reasons I'm migrating back to Linux over Windows is it's universal package/updating system
[22:50] <orlok> Chaos7Theory: Any system running ssh connected to the internet will get tens of brute force attacks per day, at least. Ditto with apache and php exploit attempts.
[22:51] <orlok> Chaos7Theory: Generally from CHina, Russia, Pakistan, etc etc.
[22:51] <orlok> Chaos7Theory: Occasionally i get attacks from english speaking countries, its rare enough that i usually send an email. Only a few times a year
[22:51] <orlok> Occasionally i make phone calls. Once i ended up talking to a guy from redhat.
[22:51] <Chaos7Theory> I used to use Linux (Ubuntu) two years ago after I screwed up my Windows OS, but the support for 64-bit systems back then wasn't really stable enough. After taking a Linux course in college, I'm migrating back with the support being there now.
[23:00] <ikonia> the supports not really changed in two years
[23:02] <Chaos7Theory> Actually it has noticeably on my end. Before, wireless network adapters had trouble working out-of-the-box was the biggest deal, which isn't a problem anymore on my end.