Common situations where a bug isn't real
Alberto Salvia Novella
es20490446e at gmail.com
Wed Jun 18 00:06:51 UTC 2014
On 17/06/14 00:02, Brian Murray wrote:
> The language "isn't real" is likely to aggravate people and rightfully
So changing "isn't real" for "isn't fixable by Ubuntu".
I'm also changing the page's ubication to
On 16/06/14 23:08, C de-Avillez wrote:
> Be careful with #1 (it is not open source) -- it may have been
> packaged by Debian (or Ubuntu), and it may be a packaging issue.
> 'Such problems are not bugs in any Ubuntu package'
Does the following correction fit what your mean?:
"Its software hasn't been packaged by Ubuntu, but by a third party."
> Being an idea for a new feature can be closed and the OP redirected to
> upstream to propose it. In the cases where Ubuntu is the upstream, the
> bug can be kept open, and an upstream task opened.
I have rewritten it as:
"It is an idea for a new feature in a software developed outside Launchpad."
I think that, with this redaction, the idea of suggesting upstream is
> The last one is just a particular case of system misconfiguration.
I have tested making this a subpoint of system misconfiguration, but it
looked easier to read if every point was in the same level as the rest;
specially being only five items there.
> - The users system files have become misconfigured.
> - The users "/etc/apt/sources.list" file has become corrupted.
> As much as I hate to say his system, I realize more and more users are
> becoming female so I figured "users" would fit better in this context.
Stephen M. Webb:
> note that it's still a bug if the system was automatically
misconfigured by a software package
I have rewritten them like this:
- The user misconfigured the system.
- The user mangled the "/etc/apt/sources.list" file.
So it looks like fitting both requirements.
On 17/06/14 00:58, Cory Baudier wrote:
> Alberto, I believe you are one of the most active folks and contribute a
> great deal, so keep em coming and great work.
Thank you :)
On 16/06/14 23:31, José Antonio Rey wrote:
> I do not thing it's good we use Emojis
> on Wiki pages, specially when most users browse from a Desktop
The reason why I have included emojis is not for making the page more
eye candy, but specially for making it faster to read while navigating
through wiki pages.
I think there's a myth in thinking that as more wordy a content is the
more precise and formal it is. While reality is very different:
- The most productive corporations in the world manage people visually
- Visual processing is 65000 times faster, more meaningful and much more
easy to remember to the human brain than words or sounds. So the perfect
way to assist fast reading.
- In fact, there's a hole widely accepted philosophy around productivity
in making signalizing more graphic, called Visual Management
> +1 from me as well, emoji don't belong on wiki pages, just like they
don't belong on emails.
If I agreed not to use emojis in email it is because Android phones show
them improperly, making the message to look very awkward. And this is
not the case on wikis.
Removing emojis, in the way they are used in these wikis, and leaving
plain text only is the same as removing icons in applications and
leaving their names only.
This makes the experience dull, hard and falsely formal. It's like
giving a Terminal to an employee saying that it's more enterprise like.
Just people got very used to it when spending so much years at school:
people filling a room full of nothingness to learn, rather than words
written in a blackboard and some sheets of paper. Only very nerdy people
like this, and even engineers hate it when it has nothing to do with
what exactly they want!
Average person will wisely avoid at all cost to deal with such
environments. And will look for something more natural to learn, like
what you can actually see and touch yourself.
Surely this is why YouTube is so popular these days, because it
eliminates layers of abstraction (words). You rarely read the free
Wikiversity; but Coursera, with its paid video courses, is growing
We should imitate what actually works; not what actually demonstrates
not to work, worldwide.
As example: natural physical environments is what emojis and pictures
simulate in the One Hundred Papercuts project; making some of the most
delightful, enjoyable and easy to understand documentation you can have
Surely you enjoyed less all this explanation than the following squid <コ:彡
More information about the Ubuntu-bugsquad