is ubuntu going to terminate Brainstorm

[thisislinuxdj]

Rumors are going around that "Ubuntu is set Terminate there Brainstorm Project!". Is that True??? or just something made up? it's all over google +! :confused::confused::confused:

[VeeDubb]

You might want to be more specific. Which project are you talking about?

[thisislinuxdj]

There Brainstorm project!

[castrojo]

There are currently no plans to terminate Ubuntu. :)

[thisislinuxdj]

i think it's brainstorm.ubuntu.com! :( read article below!
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM3MTM

[thisislinuxdj]

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard/TeamReports/13/May

[|{urse]

Sure looks like it. :)

[Elfy]

I changed the title to something a bit more precise and a little bit less provocative - though I did laugh ...

[|{urse]

lmao

[QIII]

To be honest, I have long thought that it should have been named "This is your brain on drugs storm."

There were some good ideas. The majority not so much.

[MadmanRB]

But brainstorm was a place for suggestions so I dont approve of it being lost.

[|{urse]

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/contact-details <--- You can always just send suggestions here :p
I do.. an inordinate amount of that. lol

[lykwydchykyn]

Brainstorm never really worked as it was supposed to, but it was nice to have a place to send people who came to this forum with their grand, earth-shattering ideas and then complained that "the community" wouldn't listen to them.

[sanderj]

On Phoronix:"user interest is no longer there" ... hahaha! Certainly ... because suggesting ideas on Brainstorm is useless. Proof:

"The Ubuntu community has contributed 22700 ideas", of which ... 1 idea has been implemented in 12.10: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/implemented_ideas/12.10/


Next step please: make clear that https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs is only for reporting bugs and agreeing between users, and not for getting them solved or for getting any serious feedback from developers. There seem to be only bots responding with useless remarks like "bug report removed because it was not updated in the last 40 days". :mad:

[cariboo]

Removed double post.

[tgalati4]

I thought the brainstorm website was a good idea. It still is. It's the rest of the machine that is broken. People will lose interest if they aren't being heard. Roadmaps for Ubuntu development are published, but only a tiny fraction of the brainstorm inputs are incorporated. "Why bother?"

I respect Jorge's decision to close it down, but brainstorm was not the problem. The website was like a community stationary bike where anyone could jump on and pedal for a while to generate electricity for the global village. People stopped pedalling when they found a big fat wire stuck into the ground. Who wants to waste their time generating electricity that goes straight to ground?

I'm not sure which is worse: creating a brainstorm website to solicit ideas to give the impression of community then shutting it down, or collecting ideas from the community over the past few years and then holding a bonfire of ideas to celebrate.

This whole situation has made me queasy as if I had I invested a lot of money with a hedge fund manager.

[prodigy_]

At least it's a logical step. Why have a project like Brainstorm when nobody on the development team is listening?

[castrojo]

There's something like 47 pages of implemented ideas, and the tech board routinely responded to the top ideas for every cycle. The problem with Brainstorm is that it was supposed to be a collaborative place between users and developers, but instead turned into "wishlist-driven-development", which isn't really sustainable.

[3rdalbum]

There were definitely ideas that were implemented. From memory, I think the "Offer to install a codec when the user first tries to play a file that he/she doesn't have the codec for" feature in Ubuntu came from Brainstorm or its predecessor.

However, there were certainly some crazy ideas. I submitted one about UFW being network-aware; it could turn itself off when you were safely behind your home ADSL modem's firewall, but turn on when you move to unsecured wifi or use a 3G connection. I thought that wasn't a bad idea (I found out later that Windows Vista has this as a feature) but someone came along and proposed a different approach. Their approach was "Turn the firewall off when your computer opens a connection, for example when you click Check Mail, and then as soon as the connection is closed turn the firewall back on again". This solution got lots of votes, despite being completely technically wrong.

[mastablasta]

However, there were certainly some crazy ideas. I submitted one about UFW being network-aware; it could turn itself off when you were safely behind your home ADSL modem's firewall, but turn on when you move to unsecured wifi or use a 3G connection. I thought that wasn't a bad idea (I found out later that Windows Vista has this as a feature) but someone came along and proposed a different approach. Their approach was "Turn the firewall off when your computer opens a connection, for example when you click Check Mail, and then as soon as the connection is closed turn the firewall back on again". This solution got lots of votes, despite being completely technically wrong.


LOL! so basicly turn it off when going online and then turning it on when going offline....

well but some ideas were good. brainstorming usually involves crazy ideas. however the ones like mentioned above should be filtered out before voting...

[Cheesehead]

We *do* filter out a huge amount before voting.

A lot of users mistake the difference between "listening to" and "implementing for"

Classic example:
"I want an application the tells me what other applications are making outgoing network connections, and the ability to reject those outgoing connections at the firewall."
"Why do you want to do such a thing?"
"Because I want control over my outgoing connections."
"Why do you want such a manual control? How will it benefit you?"
"I just want to manually manage it."
"Oh."

I listened to him.
I did not implement it for him. Not something I was interested in doing unless getting paid for it.

[Paddy Landau]

I see that Brainstorm appears to have been terminated.

I've just gone to visit Brainstorm (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/), but instead I get the Community (http://community.ubuntu.com/) page.

I guess it's gone now.

[toddyfranz]

Yes, I think it is gone now. I searched at google but I didn't get an article about the end – only about the discussion. If somebody have a link about the ending of this project – I am interested in it.

[castrojo]

The IS team has shut it off, there should be an announcement from either the techboard or the community council at some point.

[Paddy Landau]

Thanks for the information. Brainstorm generated some lively and interesting discussion, so it's sad that it's gone.

[PaulW2U]

Thanks for the information. Brainstorm generated some lively and interesting discussion, so it's sad that it's gone.

I never got involved with the Brainstorm site as much as I intended to but I guess Canonical's view of what should or should not be included in Ubuntu was always going to over-ride what the users wanted.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that at the end there was only one user that had administration rights so presumably the site had little importance in influencing what Canonical was going to include or exclude in future Ubuntu releases.

I'm surprised the site lasted as long as it did.

[castrojo]

The guys from StackExchange interviewed me on their podcast: https://soundcloud.com/stack-exchange/stack-exchange-podcast-48

FFWd to 12:30 for the discussion on Brainstorm, I figure it's easier to explain than my typing out the entire thing.


I never got involved with the Brainstorm site as much as I intended to but I guess Canonical's view of what should or should not be included in Ubuntu was always going to over-ride what the users wanted. I seem to recall reading somewhere that at the end there was only one user that had administration rights so presumably the site had little importance in influencing what Canonical was going to include or exclude in future Ubuntu releases.

This isn't true, at the end of the day Brainstorm didn't generate enough working implementations to make it worth running the site.