[00:52] <FruitView> i would like your thoughts about an issue.
[00:52] <FruitView> its about security/privacy philosophy.
[00:53] <FruitView> This is sort of shady, but as far as i understand, there are two approaches for handling malicious behavior, hacking, spying and that sort.
[00:55] <TJ-> ...
[00:55] <FruitView> One is technical, to put it simply, build systems to be safe. To spend energy on doing that, which takes a lot of effort and theoretically speaking I'm not even sure it can be done.
[00:56] <FruitView> The other one, is to do social policing, in which i assume the stated rationale is to instead of trying to prevent what anyway can't be prevented completely, arrange a market for it. Do monopoly, that is.
[00:58] <FruitView> It have crossed my mind that apple tried to engineer safe systems, to spend energy on making it hard for intruders, while Microsoft went for the market solution.
[00:58] <FruitView> I'm basically wondering about canonical, how they align on this.
[00:59] <TJ-> like with most things in life "just enough" is good enough for most people until it breaks, then there's an enquiry, recommendations, new rules/procedures, and we're back to "just enough" until the next time
[01:01] <TJ-> most of Canonical's efforts are in Enterprise systems and support, and from what I see, for their home-grown projects, the code quality is poor judging by the rapid stream of basic mistake bug reports I see in things like e.g. MAAS
[01:01] <FruitView> And for most users, it's not relevant, since no-one except for the random chance event, is curious on them.
[01:04] <FruitView> that may be so, but i think the pivotal point is whether they accept payment for such services, directly or not.
[01:05] <FruitView> pardon if i'm being slow or autistic in my reading of your comment.
[01:08] <TJ-> Canonical makes its money from Enterprise support and services
[01:11] <TJ-> for projects that don't originate at Canonical the quality/safety is controlled mainly by upstream although Ubuntu applies additional distro-wide hardening
[01:15] <FruitView> I don't expect there to exist any safe spots, but i would at least like to make it harder rather than easier for my intruders. Beginning to realize the software industry at large is dominated by criminals.
[01:16] <TJ-> It is?
[01:19] <FruitView> Don't know, suspect it to be so. Or maybe that sort of labeling set off a wrong impression. Who knows what sort of social mechanics produced this.
[01:21] <FruitView> you're careful
[01:22] <FruitView> is this your job?
[01:23] <TJ-> what is 'this' ?
[01:23] <TJ-> I hack on FLOSS projects, predominently Debian/Ubuntu packages and the Linux kernel
[01:28] <FruitView> i think the concept (don't know what its called) applies wider than the software industry, but guess you know.
[01:32] <FruitView> don't think i grasped your first comment well, the just enough comment.
[01:34] <FruitView> guess i'll ask the question one more time at some point with more activity.
[01:35] <daftykins> i'd prefer not
[01:35] <FruitView> how could i guess?
 what is 'this' ?
[01:38] <TJ-> "just enough" is the approach where as long as there is nothing obviously wrong no further effort is expended until a bug/vulnerability is discovered, which is then fixed, and then we're back to the "just enough" situation
[01:44] <FruitView> i'm not crusading and realize no-one here decided how it should be.
[01:47] <FruitView> its an interesting world, some people fix vulnerabilities while others code for having systems more easily accessible (the logical consequence)
[01:48] <FruitView> could probably have been formulated better, but anyway.
[01:48] <TJ-> those aren't mutally exclusive though; the problems usually come from there being no, or insufficient, design time before throwing code out
[02:02] <FruitView> I read you to believing current philosophy is for the better since theoretically safe systems can't be made anyway. But it has to be a secret, since ordinary folks won't understand. Tell you what, system should very well be easily accessible, but please understand that i may be annoyed by the idea that some rich dude practically owning my computer.
[02:04] <daftykins> ridiculous ramblings of a madman
[02:05] <FruitView> yes, dear readers - observe madness.
[02:07] <daftykins> if you're angry at someone rich for what's on your computer, then you're using the wrong software
[02:07] <daftykins> you have a choice
[02:08] <FruitView> please behave, you're language and mode of expression is unappropriate.
[02:08] <pauljw> bot alert!!!
[02:09] <daftykins> >:D
[02:09] <daftykins> FruitView: *your
[02:09] <pauljw> :)
[02:09] <TJ-> FruitView: if you want to see an example of your view of purism in action, look at the Replicant project, an effort to create a completely Free Open Source Android for phones. It only works on about 4 ancient devices, it is missing major functionality (like making phone calls).
[02:18] <FruitView> you don't want this topic to be associated at all with ubuntu, which is understandable.
[02:18] <FruitView> perhaps we should bury it then, talk about something else.
[02:19] <FruitView> i'm going to miss unity btw
[02:19] <FruitView> cant believe it.
[02:21] <daftykins> i'm nothing to do with Canonical or Ubuntu for your comments to be of any concern to me
[02:21] <FruitView> its almost like an act of crime to discontinue unity
[02:22] <FruitView> what are you then, bitcoiner?
[02:23] <XXCoder> someone would miss unity??
[02:23] <daftykins> why would bitcoin have anything to do with Ubuntu o0
[02:24] <FruitView> i would guess many people will miss unity, i hope it will resurface again.
[02:24] <daftykins> i heard it already got forked
[02:25] <FruitView> to me it was like the best in the world of desktops
[02:26] <XXCoder> not to me. not when it takjes 3 clicks to get to programs I usually dont run]
[02:26] <daftykins> i don't use desktop at all
[02:26] <XXCoder> xfce all the way for me
[02:29] <FruitView> don't remember what the software name but i also enjoyed the thing crunchbang did, a simple keypress for menu up wherever you where and all the screen estate available for apps.
[02:30] <FruitView> sort of a right click thing with shortcuts to all software, settings etc.
[02:32] <FruitView> simple easy quick and without the horizontal bar, which tend to compound to multiple bars
[02:32] <FruitView> uneasy for the eyes
[02:37] <FruitView> i hope software become politics soon.
[02:39] <FruitView> a statement which i intended to link up with screen estate, but the finer point slipped my mind.
[02:39] <daftykins> so it can be uninteresting too?
[02:39] <daftykins> you're nuts
[02:44] <FruitView> think i'll stay around to make sure you don't hurt anyone
[02:45] <FruitView> oral arms do bodily harm you know
[02:45] <pauljw> i'm telling you, it's not human...
[02:46] <FruitView> actually something i contemplate on from time to time, how much do i interact with bots presented as humans?
[02:58] <FruitView> anyone here puzzled with battery management?
[02:59] <FruitView> i want my battery charging to stop at say eighty percent but from what i read that stuff is to some extent vendor specific
[03:00] <FruitView> but i assume it to be some analogous logic between different cases, if you've done one you can do others
[06:23] <lotuspsychje> good morning to all
[06:23] <lotuspsychje> wb dax
[06:25] <alkisg> Good morning everyone :)
[06:25] <lotuspsychje> hey alkisg
[06:30] <lotuspsychje> hmm 1160 users?
[07:28] <Bashing-om> time to sleep here too(2), gotten late - g nite all o/
[07:39] <ducasse> good morning, all
[07:39] <lotuspsychje> hey hey ducasse
[07:40] <ducasse> hi lotuspsychje - how are you today?
[07:40] <lotuspsychje> great here ty ducasse
[07:42] <lotuspsychje> what about you had good days ducasse ?
[07:45] <ducasse> lotuspsychje: enjoyed a quiet xmas, now ready for new year :)
[07:45] <lotuspsychje> ducasse: any plans for new years eve?
[07:46] <ducasse> lotuspsychje: nah, staying at home, making sure the fireworks doesn't scare luna
[07:46] <lotuspsychje> hehe
[07:50] <ducasse> lotuspsychje: how about you, any plans?
[07:52] <lotuspsychje> ducasse: yeah we go to our friends many years now
[07:53] <lotuspsychje> relaxed dinner and sleepover
[08:00] <ducasse> lotuspsychje: sounds fun :)
[08:27] <lotuspsychje> dax: you guys changed something to #ubuntu? users climbing up now
[08:29] <dax> lotuspsychje: we set -r and cleared out #ubuntu-unregged. autorejoin-on-kick bumped the #ubuntu user count from 1053 to 1112 when we did that
[08:29] <lotuspsychje> cool dax, tnx for the tryout!
[08:30] <lotuspsychje> sygin new bot to protect us?
[08:30] <dax> Sigyn's the network-wide antispam bot. She's been in #ubuntu for a while, but I opped her so that she'll still see spambots if Drone (the channel antispambot) sets +qz $~a during botspam.
[08:31] <lotuspsychje> nice
[08:32] <lotuspsychje> dax: already feels like more cordy support this morning, tnx to all the ops for us!
[08:32] <dax> Current plan is to set +r (either programmatically or manually) when we have bots and set -r once things calm down (on a timescale of hours, not days). We'll see how it goes.
[08:32] <dax> s/when we have bots/when we have spambots/
[08:33] <lotuspsychje> great plan!
[08:33] <lotuspsychje> i tested the webchat freenode, its also letting me in without reg dax
[08:33] <lotuspsychje> i guess spambots cant bypass that captcha right?
[08:34] <dax> we don't do anything special for webchat currently. and yeah, spambots generally don't bother using it
[08:34] <lotuspsychje> this is great :p
[08:34] <dax> unfortunately there's no way of saying "block unregistered users but allow in web gateways" without making things complicated enough that it's even more confusing than just +r
[09:14] <lotuspsychje> bbl
[12:31] <BluesKaj> Howdy folks
[14:02] <lotuspsychje> good afternoon to all
[14:02] <pauljw> hey lotuspsychje :)
[14:03] <lotuspsychje> hey pauljw
[14:04] <lotuspsychje> hey BluesKaj
[14:05] <BluesKaj> Hi lotuspsychje, pauljw
[14:06] <lotuspsychje> users in #ubuntu climbing again :p
[14:09] <pauljw> hi BluesKaj
[14:10] <BluesKaj> lotuspsychje,  climbing?
[14:11] <lotuspsychje> BluesKaj: +R is removed by the ops with a new system
[14:13] <pauljw> lotuspsychje, what's the new procedure that replaces +R?  i use it everytime i login
[14:14] <BluesKaj> well +r is wrong, IMO it prevents newbs who don't know any better from joining and receiving support
[14:14] <lotuspsychje> pauljw: <dax> Current plan is to set +r (either programmatically or manually) when we have bots and set -r once things calm down (on a timescale of hours, not days). We'll see how it goes.
[14:16] <pauljw> is there a difference in +r and +R?  +R was supposed to stop spamming PMs.
[14:16] <lotuspsychje> i mean registered nicks yea
[14:17] <BluesKaj> the chat ends uip looking like ##linux ...full of know it alls who don't need help and just spewing about their linux chops
[14:17] <lotuspsychje> now we should have back a proper usercount soon, and more crowdy support
[14:17] <pauljw> i see
[14:17] <BluesKaj> I meant Registration which most new users don't do
[14:19] <pauljw> :)
[14:52] <lotuspsychje> hi fruit
[16:11] <pauljw> hey EriC^^ :)
[16:11] <EriC^^> hey pauljw :)
[16:14] <lotuspsychje> hey Nokaji
[16:15] <Nokaji> Greetings lotuspsychje
[16:26] <FruitView> hi lotuspsych
[16:45] <FruitView> what is CoC?
[16:45] <FruitView> (tried a search but didn't get any much)
[16:46] <BluesKaj> code of conduct on irc
[16:52] <lotuspsychje> !coc
[16:55] <FruitView> trying to join #ubuntu-offtopic - but what happens? Nothing. Anyone else having prob with it?
[16:57] <lotuspsychje> FruitView: are you registered?
[16:58] <FruitView> yes
[16:58] <lotuspsychje> FruitView: i can join it normally
[16:58] <FruitView> okay, guess i'll try again in a while. wait it out.
[17:00] <FruitView> Hows culture here, do you people stay on topic or do you do religion, politics and sexual orientation as well?
[17:00] <lotuspsychje> !guidelines | FruitView
[17:00] <FruitView> never mind, guess that is what the offtopic chan is for.
[17:01] <lotuspsychje> FruitView: in offtopic there are also guidelines
[17:13] <lotuspsychje> hey TJ-
[17:19] <TJ-> Hiya lotuspsychje :)
[19:39] <lotuspsychje> hey Bashing-om
[19:40] <Bashing-om> lotus ! .. Fancy you still active .. Holiday off-time ?
[19:41] <lotuspsychje> yesss
[19:41] <lotuspsychje> until 8 january
[19:42] <Bashing-om> lotuspsychje: That gives you time to build 5 more boxes :)
[19:42] <lotuspsychje> haha
[19:42] <lotuspsychje> Bashing-om: been ordering 1000 flyers today
[19:44] <Bashing-om> lotuspsychje: ^^ that do help to build up your user base :)
[19:44] <lotuspsychje> it surely will
[19:45] <lotuspsychje> hi Hirppa
[20:36] <lotuspsychje> nite nite guys
[22:39] <dax> pauljw: +R is a usermode that stops unidentified users from PMing you. +r is a channelmode that stops unidentified users from joining a channel
[22:39] <dax> pauljw: i.e., they do two different things, and if you're happy with umode +R, #ubuntu changing channel modes doesn't affect that :)
[22:40] <pauljw> thanks dax, i put that together during the conversation.  :)
[22:43] <pauljw> dax, i was initially confused when BluesKaj> used +R instead of +r in his statement, once i saw that one was usermode and one was channelmode it made sense.
[22:43] <dax> :)
[22:51] <pauljw> biab... dinnertime.