 ubuntu vs. linux mint, go
[00:54] <bazhang> thats not a support question
[05:08] <bazhang> it would be nice if the bot had some way to bring up various manpages
[05:09] <bazhang> for example at manpages.ubuntu.com
[05:12] <Unit193> /alias man say http://manpages.ubuntu.com/$0  works well for me.
[05:21] <bazhang> Unit193, thats with irssi?
[05:23] <bazhang> dont think xchat has the /alias feature, at least not that I can deduce
[05:23] <IdleOne> I think what bazhang was hoping for is something like "!man apt-get | $user" the bot would return a link to the appropriate page
[05:24] <bazhang> or even /msg ubottu man lvreduce
[05:26] <Unit193> say http://manpages.ubuntu.com/$0 $1- is actally better.  And yes bazhang, it is irssi.
[05:26] <Unit193> IdleOne: Yeah, patches welcome.
[07:20] <Myrtti> https://plus.google.com/108967323530519754654/posts/XqceUm2oQxp
[07:22] <elky> of course if eric raymond had problems, everyone will </sarcasm>
[07:24] <Flannel> well, if fetchmail is any indication, esr's problems become everyone else's problems.
[07:25] <Flannel> (note: this would be much more satisfying if we were talking about rms, then I could use emacs as an example)
[07:25] <Myrtti> posted it here only because he was in #ubuntu to get help
[10:32] <jrib> hmm, I can't op?
[10:32] <jrib> oh helps if I'm in the right channel...
[10:33] <jrib> m002D2 should be forwarded to ##fix_your_connection in #ubuntu-offtopic :)
[22:26]  * genii-around gets ready to bite someone
[22:27] <IdleOne> the edit is needed but I'm not sure I like the askubuntu link so much.
[22:30] <LjL> how about !adlens is <reply> If you don't like Amazon ads then maybe you hate software freedom
[22:31]  * genii-around decides to bite LjL
[22:31] <LjL> i've come ready with an armor
[22:32] <genii-around> IdleOne: I don't really have any issue with the askubuntu link... what's your concern with it?
[22:32] <LjL> just i think we try to have official wiki links in our factoids and stuff
[22:32] <LjL> but these days the wiki is less maintained than wikitravel
[22:32] <tgm4883> Just sent an edit request. Wanted to give a quick reason for the adlens update.
[22:33] <tgm4883> The package for the shopping lens is being removed in 13.10
[22:34] <IdleOne> genii-around: it looks kinda unprofessional/ thrown together/ could be confusing.
[22:34] <IdleOne> tgm4883: what are they doing with it?
[22:34] <tgm4883> IdleOne, it's getting moved to a smart lens, so the package is going away
[22:35] <tgm4883> so it will only exist in "the cloud!"
[22:35] <IdleOne> so it will be part of a metapackage, not removeable?
[22:35] <LjL> wait, meaning?
[22:35] <tgm4883> IdleOne, well the package won't exist at all
[22:36] <IdleOne> so there will be no way to fully remove the lens?
[22:36] <tgm4883> IdleOne, correct
[22:36] <IdleOne> just disable it so with an update the lens could be re-enabled?
[22:37] <IdleOne> "could"
[22:37] <tgm4883> sec, I'm grabbing the bug comment
[22:37] <IdleOne> please do
[22:37] <genii-around> Hm
[22:37] <Myrtti> "Welcome to Debian!"
[22:37] <LjL> it's like Debian, but with ads!!!1
[22:38] <Flannel> "Ubuntu. You didn't really want all that configuration anyway."
[22:38] <tgm4883> IdleOne, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/1154229/comments/29
[22:39] <tgm4883> IdleOne, so that is the comment for it, but since smart scopes got pushed back to 13.10 it is going to happen for Ubuntu+1+1
[22:39] <Flannel> tgm4883: What's a "smart lens"?
[22:39] <IdleOne> All your lenses will be in the cloud apparently
[22:40] <tgm4883> Well, lots of them
[22:40] <Flannel> So.... another way of accomplishing package management, but only for lenses?
[22:40] <genii-around> All your lenses are belong to us.
[22:40] <Flannel> Since, the lens itself isn't *run* from the cloud, surely.
[22:41] <tgm4883> Flannel, sorry, it's smart scopes, not smart lenses
[22:41] <Flannel> So you download/sync/rain/whatever with the server-based lens to a local copy, then run it locally, I would hope, yes?
[22:41] <tgm4883> Flannel, the way I understand it, you search in the dash, it queries the canonical server and returns results. The scopes exist on canonicals servers
[22:42] <Flannel> Aha.
[22:42] <tgm4883> Flannel, the scopes wouldn't get installed on your computer
[22:42] <Unit193> So if you don't have internet, the computer isn't nearly the same?
[22:42] <Flannel> That makes perfect sense (note: this only makes sense once you've had too much kool aid)
[22:42] <tgm4883> IdleOne, and while they *could* enable the privacy setting from a disabled state, they *could* also just reinstall the package
[22:43] <Flannel> Sounds like Smart Scopes aren't until 13.10 though?
[22:43] <IdleOne> I suppose, doesn't make me feel better about it though
[22:43] <tgm4883> Unit193, I believe that local scopes will still exist, but yea you wouldn't get as many results with internet connectivity
[22:43] <tgm4883> Flannel, correct, they were pushed back to 13.10
[22:44] <Flannel> Does that make this edit premature then?
[22:44] <LjL> am i reading this https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SmartScopes1304Spec correctly, basically all local and remote searches will be sent to a server together with other data and they will return results for me and aggregate "statistical data"?
[22:44] <Flannel> (Since the package removal is still valid for six more months)
[22:45] <tgm4883> IdleOne, I'd partially agree with that. History shows that canonical has pushed some changes that aren't liked by the community, and have gone back to do things to fix that (eg. adding the privacy settings and legal notices)
[22:45] <Flannel> LjL: Instead of having specific lenses worry about sending data, theyre just sending all the things, and then letting the server sort out which lenses you "have"
[22:45] <IdleOne> Anyway, how do we feel about the link in the edit pointing to askubuntu?
[22:45] <Flannel> LjL: At least, that's my five-minute understanding of it.
[22:46] <LjL> i feel honestly what the link points to is the last of my concerns here
[22:46] <tgm4883> IdleOne, while those could be considered bad, it would be so much worse if they reenabled an explicitely disabled setting. Something that they wouldn't recover from PR wise
[22:46] <IdleOne> LjL: I agree.
[22:46] <Flannel> tgm4883: Is this edit premature then? since it sounds like the package-method is still valid for six more months (due to the delay)
[22:46] <IdleOne> I'll let someone else decide on the edit.
[22:46] <tgm4883> Flannel, While it would still work, I think it's a better plan to train users the way to do it going forward, the privacy settings will work now AND later (TM)
[22:47] <tgm4883> Flannel, that is why I think it should be done now
[22:47] <Flannel> um.
[22:47] <Flannel> !adlens
[22:47] <Flannel> !-adlens
[22:47] <Flannel> That link is already there?
[22:48] <IdleOne> http://goo.gl/kFO4u
[22:48] <IdleOne> it is
[22:48] <tgm4883> Flannel, right, what I'm saying is why would we tell users to remove a package when that isn't going to be an option in the future. At this point, that is a deprecated solution
[22:48] <Flannel> tgm4883: No, it's not deprecated for six more months.
[22:48] <Flannel> tgm4883: and, if history is any indication, who knows what changes will be made in six months.
[22:49] <tgm4883> Flannel, Deprecation is a status applied to a computer software feature, characteristic, or practice indicating it should be avoided, typically because of being superseded.
[22:49]  * genii-around wakes up for a minute
[22:49] <tgm4883> Flannel, deprecated doesn't mean it's been removed
[22:49] <Flannel> tgm4883: I'm well aware of the definiton, thank you.
[22:49] <Flannel> tgm4883: It's not deprecated, 13.10 is a LONG way away.
[22:49] <IdleOne> tgm4883: but it isn't deprecated yet as long as it can still be removed
[22:50] <Flannel> tgm4883: I would *hope* that the engineers at Canonical would do some upgrade-fu and consider "hey, this guy removed unity-lens-shopping, lets disable it for him now that that's not an option"
[22:50] <LjL> IdleOne: technically, after it can't be removed any longer, it's no longer "deprecated", it's just impossible
[22:50] <Flannel> and, I think that likely should have a bug made for it.
[22:50] <Flannel> but that's a migration issue, pending Smart lenses even landing in 13.10
[22:50] <IdleOne> as long as there still is a package to remove I think we should leave the info there
[22:50] <Flannel> (pending 13.10 even existing)
[22:50] <tgm4883> Flannel, so what is going to happen is from now until October, users are going to remove the package. Then 13.10 will get released and we'll get a flood of people in the support channel asking "I'm still getting amazon results in the dash but I tried removing the shopping lens and it says it's already removed"
[22:51] <Flannel> tgm4883: Like I said, I think that migration needs to be handled by Canonical engineers.
[22:51] <Myrtti> tgm4883: things changing isn't new
[22:51] <Myrtti> the factoids and how things are done change.
[22:51] <Flannel> tgm4883: And I would hope that they would consider that, because that's part of the upgrade process.
[22:52] <tgm4883> Flannel, You honestly think the people that brought us the shopping lens without a way to disable it via privacy settings are going to disable it via privacy settings if the package was missing on upgrade?
[22:52] <tgm4883> Flannel, I wouldn't hold my breath for that commit
[22:53] <IdleOne> for now the ability to remove the package still exists. We should leave that option to the user.
[22:53] <tgm4883> Myrtti, I agree, and if you guys decide that this change shouldn't happen for 6 more months that is your decision. I'm just trying to prevent the flood of users that will inevitability happen when 13.10 gets released
[22:53] <Flannel> tgm4883: If we're going to get that way, just remember that Canonical has root, and already has access to all of your data, whether you enable or disable a privacy setting or not.
[22:53] <tgm4883> (nipping it in the bud if you will)
[22:53] <Flannel> tgm4883: and I encourage you to open a bug on the migration issue, because I think *that* needs to be addressed as well.
[22:54] <Flannel> tgm4883: We can do all the yelling we want in IRC, but there's a large number of people who DONT use IRC, and won't be helped, even if we are proactive.
[22:54] <tgm4883> Flannel, so we shouldn't help any users then?
[22:54] <Flannel> tgm4883: so the greater good is to force Canonicals hand, to make upgrading a success.
[22:54] <Flannel> tgm4883: If you're going to get that way, I'll leave to you the rest of the operators.  Good day sir.
[22:54] <tgm4883> ....
[22:55] <tgm4883> That was your response?
[22:55] <tgm4883> "there's a large number of people who DONT use IRC, and won't be helped, even if we are proactive." from that I'm inferring, since a lot of people don't use IRC, we shouldn't help the people that do (on this issue)
[22:55] <Flannel> tgm4883: I've already given you my response, I think we need to be proactive for ALL of the users, not just IRC ones who happe to read a factoid before seeing a million other posts out there.
[22:56] <IdleOne> tgm4883: For now we are going to leave the info about how to remove the package. if/when that is no longer an option we can then edit the factoid.
[22:56] <tgm4883> Why not both?
[22:56] <tgm4883> IdleOne, ok
[22:56] <Flannel> because it's still a viable option today.  If we remove it, we're not informing people of the option to remove the lens entirely.
[22:57] <tgm4883> Flannel, there are a lot of things we don't inform users how to do
[22:57] <IdleOne> This is why we need people like you to help us help those people :)
[22:58] <tgm4883> In any case, the decision has been made. I thank you for your time
[23:22] <harris> pinkspaider is cursing on #ubuntu
[23:22] <IdleOne> I saw. thank you
[23:22] <harris> yep can you help me with support
[23:23] <harris> no one is responding
[23:23] <IdleOne> patience
[23:24] <IdleOne> Please don't idle in here
[23:26] <IdleOne> harris: ^
[23:26] <harris> ok
[23:26] <harris> what does idle mean
[23:30] <IdleOne> Not active or in use