Call for discussion to clarify the IRC guidelines

[Alan Pope]

Hi All,

Thanks for starting this discussion, I think it's very valuable.

On 20 July 2011 07:36, Matt Darcy <ubuntu.lists at projecthugo.co.uk> wrote:
> Ubuntu is a channel to support "Ubuntu" not "Linux" the Ubuntu product and
> it's associated software.

Assuming "associated software" means main, restricted, universe, multiverse.

> Your learning to compile software is nothing to do
> with the Ubuntu product therefore why should people giving their time to
> support the Ubuntu product give their time to help you learn about "Linux" -
> more so when other users who are looking for help with Ubuntu have attention
> diverted away from them.
>

So where does gcc, make, ld and related stuff go in there? Do we
support "How do I create a template in LibreOffice" or "How do I
manage my sources.list" but not "How do I compile this C code?".

Where is the line?

> to be blunt, if you are an inexperienced user, why would you be using the
> unsupported beta product,

For fun?

Part of the principle of Free Software is being able to run what you
like on your own hardware. If "what I want" is bleeding edge crack of
the day, then so be it.

> the fact that it comes with a warning saying "this
> product is unsupported and in $X stage of development" means by it's very
> nature, it's not supported and will have problems, which suggests unless you
> are technicaly compentant in resolving these issues yourself or in a
> position to live with / not care about problems you shouldn't be using it at
> this stage, so it's quite insulting for you to go into #ubuntu and ask about
> the beta product ignoring the warnings the development community have given
> to you before you installed it.
>

We may not recommend it, we may believe new users are daft for doing
this, but do this they will. We should point them to the right
direction in a respectful way, and not ridicule them for the choices
they make.

> Why again should the community pickup unofficial software, no matter how
> good it is, that's nothing against unofficial projects, but if they are
> good, they can apply for and will get status within the ubuntu project. The
> definition of official release and supported release (such as EOL products)
> would certainly benifit from a definition on the wiki going forward.
>

Whilst I think we should have guidelines and boundaries for support,
we also need to be flexible. Now Ubuntu has been around a while we get
a fair number of people on 'old' releases (9.04 and below, non-LTS
versions) often asking for help.

I am never a fan of "upgrade or I wont talk to you" style of
'support', that feels like the proprietary model. Whilst we can tell
people that "your release is EOL" or "we no longer recommend you run
that", I'd still like to see "best endeavour" support even for old
releases.

> In terms of the phrase "supported" as Alan Pope has pointed out very
> reasonably on a few occasions this phrase has various meanings in terms of
> #ubuntu we need to agree on a definition or it's intended message, even if
> some of us disagree on what this means.
>

Yes, I have worries about the use of "supported" and "unsupported" as
well as "recommended".

Examples:-

"Upgrading via editing sources.list then apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade"
"Installing latest Mozilla MonkeyBrowser software from a PPA"
"I want to compile the latest WhizzBar from source, because its
supports my ZingDevice"

Some say "not supported", some say "not recommended".

"Not supported" may mean:-

1. _We_ refuse to help you with this activity due to local policy
2. The software isn't capable of doing that
3. Doing this may compromise the security, integrity of your system,
it's probably wise you don't do that
4. The software you're installing is outside our repositories, so
Ubuntu don't provide updates

or some combination of some of them. I think we need to be clearer
when telling people "not supported". Maybe using a better term for
describing why support is refused/redirected.

> I believe (possibly wrongly) #ubuntu should follow that model and get behind
> the supported methods and technologies,

Ok, so the questions above are still being asked, whether we choose to
help them in #ubuntu or not. The question and requirement doesn't go
away. So I guess one or more of a number of things will happen.

1. "Wow, these guys are clever, I clearly don't want to mess this up,
I'll not do what I wanted to do, and live with old software, or a
broken ZingDevice"
2. "Wow, crap support, I'll go elsewhere for help"
3. "Why!? Why!? Tell me, how to do this!"

(1) seems unlikely to me. (2) is more likely with the net result that
people _will_ do what they want with _their_ systems whether "we" help
them or not. Other support avenues such as Ubuntu Forums and Ask
Ubuntu don't seem to impose these restrictions.

http://askubuntu.com/questions/6339/how-do-i-install-the-latest-stable-version-of-firefox
http://askubuntu.com/questions/51743/how-do-i-compile-a-kernel-module
http://askubuntu.com/questions/12909/how-do-i-upgrade-to-the-development-release-aka-ubuntu1

Seems to me they manage to provide support for "unsupported"
activities. How is it they can do it and 'we' "can't" {won't}?


Al.