[08:37] <yellabs> good morning, for those who live on this side of the globe
[09:30] <jussi> chu:
[09:30] <jussi> :D
[09:30] <chu> Evening.
[09:30] <jussi> ikonia: bring back KDE! :P
[09:31] <ikonia>  /ignore jussi
[09:31] <ikonia> see, exactly as I said
[09:31] <jussi> ikonia: Ubuntu TV isnt silence - weekly news about that...
[09:32] <jussi> Wayland they have been talking about recently.
[09:32] <ikonia> jussi: anything changed......
[09:33] <chu> I somewhat understand that they want to hone their development in on one specific area, rather than spreading it out over a few - and perhaps their approach in this sense, handing the project to the community and then washing their hands of it - is not a wise decision, but it is somewhat necessary for them to focus only on the one desktop environment.
[09:34] <jussi> ikonia: for example, you can see the current ssues with UTV here: http://pad.ubuntu-uk.org/UbuntuTV-Issues
[09:34] <ikonia> jussi: I was unware of that link (I'll have a look) I was probably unaware of it because the main page that's not changed for 9 months doesn't say anything about it
[09:35] <jussi> ahh yeah, if you were on the ML you would have seen some of the stuff going on
[09:36] <jussi> the phone is very quiet though
[09:37] <ikonia> in fairness to my comment,s I'm not "interested enough" to join the mailing lists, so I am aware that there is probably more, but the comment was about public availability of information
[09:38] <jussi> ikonia: so I guess you are basically complaining about the wiki page not being updated (in this case)
[09:38] <ikonia> not just the wiki
[09:39] <ikonia> but yeah, thats a factor
[09:39] <ikonia> "check out this stuff, ask questions...."
[09:39] <ikonia> but then nothing
[09:41] <jussi> ikonia: this hasnt been updated for a while (since uds) but this guy has been doing a bunch of work on the tv stuff: http://www.doadjustyourset.com/
[09:43] <ikonia> that would be nice to see on an ubuntu/canonical source to show how it's going
[09:43] <ikonia> or a "blog" in this style from caonical
[09:43] <ikonia> canonical
[09:43] <jussi> (he has been sick or otherwise occupied, was something on the ml about it)
[09:44] <IdleOne> I think the point is that canonical makes these nice web pages and then there is nothing added to them. also how is someone interested going to find http://www.doadjustyourset.com/ on his own
[09:44] <IdleOne> I mean seriously, how am I as a regular user supposed to make a link between that site and Canonical
[18:30] <AlanBell> I don't think you are as a regular user
[18:31] <AlanBell> it is a blog with some random notes and articles by the team, it could be on planet.ubuntu.com if they are members, or the canonical voices planet
[18:53] <popey> why should it be a canonical source?
[18:54] <popey> I thought people wanted more community involvement, not less :)
[18:54] <popey> also, that url is in the /topic of the "official" #ubuntu-tv irc channel
[19:16] <IdleOne> popey: community involvement still needs direction. especially on projects that very little info has been given about
[19:21] <popey> yes, and the people who are involved are giving direction
[19:21] <popey> ask the guy doing most of the community work on ubuntu tv if he gets help from the canonical guys
[19:22] <popey> Will Cooke setup donotadjustyourset specifically to improve communication
[19:24] <IdleOne> I don't know if he does, I would assume that if he asks, they will help. For me it is more frustration on learning of this really cool idea like Ubuntu TV or Ubuntu for Android, and then not hearing anything else about it for months.
[19:25] <popey> no, I'm saying _ask_ him
[19:25] <popey> you don't know if he does because you haven't asked him yet :)
[19:26] <popey> he gets guidance from people in canonical, we tell him what we're doing (where we can) and he knows which developers to poke to get info
[19:26] <popey> I'm sure it's not perfect, but it's better than no info at all
[19:26] <popey> nothing has happened with UfA which is worth talking about as far as I know
[19:26] <popey> if there was something we'd have announced it
[19:29] <IdleOne> Yeah but it was announced early to the public when there really wasn't much to announce, sparked some interest and then that interest fizzled due to lack of information for the public.
[19:30] <AlanBell> UfA was announced early to the OEMs, just it was an unusually open announcment and the public saw it as well
[19:33] <IdleOne> Well, I am patiently waiting for a OEM to announce a release of UfA so I can go buy one.
[19:34] <AlanBell> me too
[19:34] <IdleOne> I can be patient because I understand that these things take time. As a regular Joe on the street. I would have already bought something else, because UfA fell off the radar.
[19:38] <AlanBell> yeah, it was an interesting strategy to do it like that. I guess the public noise about it was to get the attention of the OEMs
[19:43] <k1l> im waiting UfA, too. but brought a nexus4 for the meantime :)
[19:53] <popey> well, you kinda have to be public when it's at CES
[19:53] <popey> and you have to be at CES if you want the attention of cellphone / SoC vendors
[19:57] <popey> Also remember that Mark and Rick have both said repeatedly, publicly that the goal is to have Ubuntu on phones, tablets etc by 14.04
[19:57] <popey> we're some way off that :)
[19:59] <popey> although it's coming up fast!
[20:13] <guntbert> I am getting more and more disappointed about the "official" ubuntu documentation - just have a look at   https://help.ubuntu.com/12.10/installation-guide/ (mind how URL and content don't match at all)
[20:13] <guntbert> further question: should a bug about this really be filed against the "Ubuntu installation-guide  package"?
[21:11] <AlanBell> has one been so filed?
[21:13] <guntbert> AlanBell: not yet, but I am in doubt if that would be appropriate - what do you say about that page?
[21:16] <IdleOne> The information appears to be accurate
[21:19] <sepisoad> ubuntu1 client is damn too much ugly ... vomit
[21:20] <guntbert> IdleOne: are you replying to me?
[21:21] <IdleOne> guntbert: yes, aside from it possibly being confusing to the user, the screen shots look correct
[21:22] <guntbert> IdleOne: screen shot? what screenshot? I was talking about https://help.ubuntu.com/12.10/installation-guide/ (mind how URL and content don't match at all)
[21:23] <IdleOne> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/GraphicalInstall looks to be close enough to what it would look like in 12.10 install process
[21:23] <guntbert> and there isn't an alternate CD anymore
[21:24] <IdleOne> 12.04 doesn't have an alternate iso?
[21:24] <guntbert> IdleOne: I am not talking about the link "graphical install", I am talking about a page in teh 12.10 install guide
[21:25] <guntbert> *the
[21:25] <guntbert> 12.10 !
[21:25] <IdleOne> Then I am not sure exactly what it is you see as a problem
[21:25] <TheLordOfTime> IdleOne, i think he's saying that the data in the page at help.ubuntu.com/12.10/installation-guide states there is an alternate ISO
[21:26] <TheLordOfTime> while there isn't.
[21:26] <guntbert> IdleOne: the page is accessed as part of the 12.10 install guide, has "Installing Ubuntu 12.10 from the Alternate CD" as content...
[21:26] <TheLordOfTime> alternate ISO for 12.10 that is
[21:26] <IdleOne> I see. then the page needs to be edited to be more precise
[21:27] <TheLordOfTime> which is what guntbert was asking about: should a bug be filed about it against the installation-guide package.
[21:27]  * TheLordOfTime returns to lurkmode
[21:27] <guntbert> IdleOne: it needs heavy editing - the links are pointing to the 12.04 guide
[21:28] <guntbert> TheLordOfTime: mainly yes, but i was in ranting mode too, I have to admit
[21:28] <IdleOne> file a bug, the worst that happens is the bug is marked invalid if the package maintainer feels it is correct. The best, they fix it :)
 I am kind of tired filing doc bugs - the one thing that happens with most of them: nothing at all </rant>
[21:42] <guntbert> bug filed (Bug #1090567), might someone care to confirm it?
[21:43] <IdleOne> done
[21:44] <guntbert> thx :)
[21:51] <guntbert> IdleOne: not to keep on ranting, but the last bug I filed against installation-guide (Bug #1090567, in May) is still *new* without one single activity, so I don't expect too much :-)
[21:52] <guntbert> wrong bug number
[21:52] <guntbert> it was actually Bug #1000354