bilijoe
April 24th, 2008, 01:38 AM
I used to be a professional software developer, and, because, on more than one occasion, we actually did "repackage a bug, with appropriate spin" in the documentation, adding a "feature" to our list, and alleviating the burden to our programmers (and production schedule) of actually having to fix something, "is it a bug or a feature?" became a running joke (and a terrible policy). Q. When posting a new post I no longer see a selection of posts that might pertain to my question.
A. We are researching to see if we can migrate this feature over. (Sorry, but reading the FAQ shifted me from perplexed to borderline angry.) Researching? Really! At this stage? To "see if [you] can {maybe??} migrate this feature over". Really? Do you (whoever the "you" are, who decided "in the best interest of us all" to "upgrade" to this new version)--do "you" actually USE the forums? (Or are you now so advanced and knowledgeable that you are beyond that?) If you cannot migrate this feature into the new system, then you have seriously damaged a primary and very important aspect of the utility of the entire forum system. which is, by the way (or, at least used to be), one of the best features of Ubuntu! This is akin to saying "we are researching to see if we can integrate a reverse gear into the new model (as a work-around, you can always push the car backwards, until we come up with a definitive answer on this issue)". At this point, "upgrading to the new version of vBulletin, 3.7" smacks soundly of "upgrading to the new version of Windows, VISTA. In my "humble" opinion, when initiating a new post, the list of posts that might pertain to the subject of your [proposed] new post, IS NOT AN OPTIONAL FEATURE! Without this ESSENTIAL FEATURE, in the past few weeks, I alone would have needlessly (and counter productively) clogged the forums with needless, redundant posts. Again, I have to ask, do "you" actually USE the forums? Or are these apparently extensive and radical changes just theoretical to you. "Well it looked good on paper." "The salesman said it was a real good idea!" "And it's an upgrade!" Yeah, well VISTA is also an "upgrade". And again, I see an eerie similarity, in that we, the end users, don't seem to have a choice in the matter. And just last week, I received a reply to a post, in which the author (an ubuntu forum staff member) was staunchly defending keeping old posts around essentially forever. May I quote? "We've seen questions solved after a year or so. We keep all of them." Reconcile that for me, will you, with "A. We wanted to give our forum a bit of a fresh start..." And may I note that I am not the only one who is less than delighted with the switch to VISTA...er, excuse me, to vBulliten version 3.7. E.g., "Q. Whoa! I hate the forum theme..." And, " Q. Will the old theme be available?" And I guess this is more "after-the-fact research:" Q. What happened to the gallery? A. Currently, the gallery is offline until we decide if we want to upgrade it." How do I mark a thread as "Solved" now? "Q. I am confused between "prefixes" and "tags", how do I post?" SO, how is it that the forums, which seemed to me to be working flawlessly, are going to benefit from an additional level of complexity, which is clearly confusing at least some of us? "Q. What are social groups?" And does "Big Brother" belong to any of them? "Q. Why is my browser trying to connect to http://yui.yahooapis.com (http://yui.yahooapis.com/)", and do we know all the ramifications of affiliating with YAHOO? Does YAHOO subscribe to the Ubuntu Philosophy? (See the following URL, for more information: (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy). But this... this is by far the most disturbing and unsettling of all the entries in the Forum Upgrade FAQ:
Q. I hate this upgrade, please go back to the previous version of the forum.
A. Sorry, we can't. :smile:B. S. We have, at our disposal hundreds, maybe even thousands of the most talented and energetic programmers the World has ever known. What the _ _ _ _ do you mean "we can't"? I didn't [used to] think the word "can't" was even a part of a true Ubuntuer's vocabulary. We can't? I'm at a loss for words! We can create, maintain, grow, and evolve the finest Operating System ever to grace a piece of silicone, and flush it out with some of the most functional, creative, efficient, fun, and powerful programs, utilities, plug-ins, etc., ever enjoyed by computer users, anywhere, but we can't maintain a group of user forums that everyone is happy with? HOGWASH! Why, I'll bet there is at least one member of our Ubuntu family, sitting out there right now, possibly even reading this post, who is creative and ingenious enough to write an entire, fully functional, indexed, cross referenced, infinitely configurable, user friendly forum manager, entirely within the confines of a Bash Shell Script! (Well, maybe that's a bit of a stretch, but I'm sure, if she needs it, we can get her a copy of a good C++ compiler--I hear there's one around here someplace.) Anyway, I have not intended here to offend anyone; if I have, please accept my sincerest of apologies. I may have stretched, but have endeavored not to break the Ubuntu Code of Conduct. If anyone feels I have, I am truly sorry. I guess I got my hackles up, when I detected what felt, to me, like a management approach within the World of Ubuntu, entirely too Draconian (or Gatesian) to be compatible with what I understand to be the Ubuntu Philosophy. I would humbly submit that, although it might require a significant amount of work, we most certainly can "roll back" the Forum Management system. I've been deeply involved in the field of Computer Science since the days when "Computer courses" were within the jurisdiction of University Math Departments, and "Computers" filled entire buildings and required a staff of a dozen or so people, just to run 100 line (make that 100 punchcard) programs, in 4k of memory, and I began writing system-level software for "home" computers, before they had hard drives, and I have never encountered a situation where a system of any information management variety could not be rolled back to an earlier version. I have, in fact, seen and been involved in several situations where that was exactly what had to be done. In those cases, what could NOT be done, was to continue entrusting valuable data to a system that had failed to meet expectations, or had been implemented without taking all important facts into account. I would further humbly submit that the Forum Management Team present to the Ubuntu Community an opportunity to express their needs, feelings, and preferences, with regards to making any changes, especially when the changes appear to be extensive and their results potentially far reaching, to what I feel is one of the core components of Ubuntu itself. Because many (most?) of us learn how to use and get the most out of Ubuntu through the forums, I submit that the "forum component" is as important to the superiority of Ubuntu/Linux over [all] other operating systems as is the kernel itself. If it weren't for the forums, few people would ever know the vast (unlimited?) potential of the abundance of software that depends on the kernel, and, if we don't know how to [fully] utilize it, its value is certainly greatly diminished. Please! Slam on the breaks, and re-think this entire thing. If it isn't broken, then, unless you can offer significant and relevant improvements in its usefulness, without sacrificing any existing functionality, don't fix it!
A. We are researching to see if we can migrate this feature over. (Sorry, but reading the FAQ shifted me from perplexed to borderline angry.) Researching? Really! At this stage? To "see if [you] can {maybe??} migrate this feature over". Really? Do you (whoever the "you" are, who decided "in the best interest of us all" to "upgrade" to this new version)--do "you" actually USE the forums? (Or are you now so advanced and knowledgeable that you are beyond that?) If you cannot migrate this feature into the new system, then you have seriously damaged a primary and very important aspect of the utility of the entire forum system. which is, by the way (or, at least used to be), one of the best features of Ubuntu! This is akin to saying "we are researching to see if we can integrate a reverse gear into the new model (as a work-around, you can always push the car backwards, until we come up with a definitive answer on this issue)". At this point, "upgrading to the new version of vBulletin, 3.7" smacks soundly of "upgrading to the new version of Windows, VISTA. In my "humble" opinion, when initiating a new post, the list of posts that might pertain to the subject of your [proposed] new post, IS NOT AN OPTIONAL FEATURE! Without this ESSENTIAL FEATURE, in the past few weeks, I alone would have needlessly (and counter productively) clogged the forums with needless, redundant posts. Again, I have to ask, do "you" actually USE the forums? Or are these apparently extensive and radical changes just theoretical to you. "Well it looked good on paper." "The salesman said it was a real good idea!" "And it's an upgrade!" Yeah, well VISTA is also an "upgrade". And again, I see an eerie similarity, in that we, the end users, don't seem to have a choice in the matter. And just last week, I received a reply to a post, in which the author (an ubuntu forum staff member) was staunchly defending keeping old posts around essentially forever. May I quote? "We've seen questions solved after a year or so. We keep all of them." Reconcile that for me, will you, with "A. We wanted to give our forum a bit of a fresh start..." And may I note that I am not the only one who is less than delighted with the switch to VISTA...er, excuse me, to vBulliten version 3.7. E.g., "Q. Whoa! I hate the forum theme..." And, " Q. Will the old theme be available?" And I guess this is more "after-the-fact research:" Q. What happened to the gallery? A. Currently, the gallery is offline until we decide if we want to upgrade it." How do I mark a thread as "Solved" now? "Q. I am confused between "prefixes" and "tags", how do I post?" SO, how is it that the forums, which seemed to me to be working flawlessly, are going to benefit from an additional level of complexity, which is clearly confusing at least some of us? "Q. What are social groups?" And does "Big Brother" belong to any of them? "Q. Why is my browser trying to connect to http://yui.yahooapis.com (http://yui.yahooapis.com/)", and do we know all the ramifications of affiliating with YAHOO? Does YAHOO subscribe to the Ubuntu Philosophy? (See the following URL, for more information: (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy). But this... this is by far the most disturbing and unsettling of all the entries in the Forum Upgrade FAQ:
Q. I hate this upgrade, please go back to the previous version of the forum.
A. Sorry, we can't. :smile:B. S. We have, at our disposal hundreds, maybe even thousands of the most talented and energetic programmers the World has ever known. What the _ _ _ _ do you mean "we can't"? I didn't [used to] think the word "can't" was even a part of a true Ubuntuer's vocabulary. We can't? I'm at a loss for words! We can create, maintain, grow, and evolve the finest Operating System ever to grace a piece of silicone, and flush it out with some of the most functional, creative, efficient, fun, and powerful programs, utilities, plug-ins, etc., ever enjoyed by computer users, anywhere, but we can't maintain a group of user forums that everyone is happy with? HOGWASH! Why, I'll bet there is at least one member of our Ubuntu family, sitting out there right now, possibly even reading this post, who is creative and ingenious enough to write an entire, fully functional, indexed, cross referenced, infinitely configurable, user friendly forum manager, entirely within the confines of a Bash Shell Script! (Well, maybe that's a bit of a stretch, but I'm sure, if she needs it, we can get her a copy of a good C++ compiler--I hear there's one around here someplace.) Anyway, I have not intended here to offend anyone; if I have, please accept my sincerest of apologies. I may have stretched, but have endeavored not to break the Ubuntu Code of Conduct. If anyone feels I have, I am truly sorry. I guess I got my hackles up, when I detected what felt, to me, like a management approach within the World of Ubuntu, entirely too Draconian (or Gatesian) to be compatible with what I understand to be the Ubuntu Philosophy. I would humbly submit that, although it might require a significant amount of work, we most certainly can "roll back" the Forum Management system. I've been deeply involved in the field of Computer Science since the days when "Computer courses" were within the jurisdiction of University Math Departments, and "Computers" filled entire buildings and required a staff of a dozen or so people, just to run 100 line (make that 100 punchcard) programs, in 4k of memory, and I began writing system-level software for "home" computers, before they had hard drives, and I have never encountered a situation where a system of any information management variety could not be rolled back to an earlier version. I have, in fact, seen and been involved in several situations where that was exactly what had to be done. In those cases, what could NOT be done, was to continue entrusting valuable data to a system that had failed to meet expectations, or had been implemented without taking all important facts into account. I would further humbly submit that the Forum Management Team present to the Ubuntu Community an opportunity to express their needs, feelings, and preferences, with regards to making any changes, especially when the changes appear to be extensive and their results potentially far reaching, to what I feel is one of the core components of Ubuntu itself. Because many (most?) of us learn how to use and get the most out of Ubuntu through the forums, I submit that the "forum component" is as important to the superiority of Ubuntu/Linux over [all] other operating systems as is the kernel itself. If it weren't for the forums, few people would ever know the vast (unlimited?) potential of the abundance of software that depends on the kernel, and, if we don't know how to [fully] utilize it, its value is certainly greatly diminished. Please! Slam on the breaks, and re-think this entire thing. If it isn't broken, then, unless you can offer significant and relevant improvements in its usefulness, without sacrificing any existing functionality, don't fix it!