Advertising in the MOTD
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| update-motd (Ubuntu) |
Opinion
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned | ||
Bug Description
In a previous report you told us to report new bugs in ubuntu-motd, however ubuntu-bug doesn't allow this.
The previous report was about marketing/promotion of Ubuntu in the MOTD, however this report is to address new advertising in the MOTD. The MOTD should be reserved for vulnerabilities and other fixes - instead I logged in this morning to find the following:
"* Check out 6 great IDEs now available on Ubuntu. There may even be
something worthwhile there for those crazy EMACS fans ;)
Can we discuss this? This absolutely sucks because it's an advert for a blog post that mostly has desktop IDE's and isn't even relevant for server users *and* it's using a bit.ly link. In a previous bug report[1] it was promised that everyone would watch what others are merging so how did this get through??
[1]: https:/
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 18.04
Package: base-files 10.1ubuntu2.2
ProcVersionSign
Uname: Linux 4.15.0-1020-aws x86_64
ApportVersion: 2.20.9-0ubuntu7.2
Architecture: amd64
Date: Thu Aug 30 08:34:40 2018
Dependencies:
Ec2AMI: ami-0f7b7753aba
Ec2AMIManifest: (unknown)
Ec2Availability
Ec2InstanceType: m5.xlarge
Ec2Kernel: unavailable
Ec2Ramdisk: unavailable
ProcEnviron:
TERM=xterm-
PATH=(custom, no user)
LANG=C.UTF-8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: base-files
UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)
| ktechmidas (ktechmidas) wrote | #1 |
| no longer affects: | base-files (Ubuntu) |
| Steve Langasek (vorlon) wrote | #2 |
| Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote | #3 |
| Changed in update-motd (Ubuntu): | |
| status: | New → Confirmed |
| Koen (koen-beek) wrote | #4 |
| Changed in update-motd (Ubuntu): | |
| status: | Confirmed → Opinion |
Thank you for your feedback. Taking your comments one-by-one:
> The previous report was about marketing/promotion of Ubuntu in the MOTD,
> however this report is to address new advertising in the MOTD. The MOTD
> should be reserved for vulnerabilities and other fixes
This was addressed in https:/
"* And sometimes, it's just a matter of presenting a fun fact. News from the world of Ubuntu. Or even your own IT department. Such was the case with the Silicon Valley / HBO message. It was just an interesting tidbit of potpourri from the world of Ubuntu. Last week's message actually announced an Ubuntu conference in Latin America. The week before, we linked to an article asking for feedback on Kubuntu. Before that, we announced the availability of Extended Security Maintenance updates for 12.04. And so on."
It is not the position of the team that this space is to be reserved exclusively for communication around vulnerabilities.
You describe this as 'advertising'. Generally speaking all of the information that has been posted to motd.ubuntu.com constitutes 'advertising' of one form or another; advertising the existence of new Ubuntu-related products, advertising of the Ubuntu team's response to newsworthy vulnerabilities, advertising of miscellaneous "fun facts" from the surrounding Ubuntu ecosystem. So this is not per se a blocker for inclusion of this particular blog entry.
> Can we discuss this? This absolutely sucks because it's an advert for a
> blog post that mostly has desktop IDE's and isn't even relevant for
> server users
I'm sorry that you didn't find this content interesting. But the standard for motd.ubuntu.com is not that it be interesting to any particular user. We believe there is significant overlap between desktop and server users of Ubuntu, so even though users will not normally see the motd on the desktop, it is interesting to share information about desktop software (and in particular, developer-centric software) in the motd that's shown on the server.
> *and* it's using a bit.ly link.
It's true that it is using a bit.ly link. The motd.ubuntu.com messages have consistently used link shorteners. It's not clear to me what your criticism is here.
> In a previous bug report[1] it was promised that everyone would watch
> what others are merging so how did this get through??
There is oversight by multiple people on the branch where these messages are published. The disconnect here seems to be that your expectations for the contents of these messages don't match what the team considers to be the standard to which we are reviewing.