Talk:Ubuntu

Live CDs

I've added a citation to the fact that some people call the custom live cds "custom spins," but I was not able to find anything stating Canonical's opinion on the subject. The section might be something that should just be removed from the artical, even more so since the section is just two sentences long at the moment. Zen Clark (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Releases

There should be a list of releases by code name, release date and version number. I cannot find them and am lousy at Wiki-work anyway, but to the best of my memory: Breezy Badger, Hoary Hedgehog, Intrepid Ibex, no doubt 2 or three more.Mark Preston (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

History of Ubuntu releases. However, maybe the table should be copied here for quick reference... --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There used a table of the codenames of different versions of ubuntu, like hardy heron, dapper drake, and so on, together with release dates. Was it deleted for some particular reason? I find it quite useful information. Does something speak against restoring it? Thanks for the info. Ben ^T/_C 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

History of Ubuntu releases --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The list should be incorporated in the main article (even if there is some wiki rule against that). It's info a lot of people want about ubuntu, especially since the catching release names are so characteristic of ubuntu. I added the list by copy-pasting. I couldn't stand the dutch wikipedia containing such a list and the english not. I hope i kept to all the conventions by just copy-pasting it. Anybody feel free to further modify it 145.88.209.33 (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC) (oops, got logged out whils eating the birthday cake of a colleague Pizzaman79 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

@*#@ (cursing) I now know what kept others from just copy-pasting; the references. I now also copy-pasted all references in the table from the List_of_Ubuntu_releases page. However i propose replacing them all with a single link to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases. However not being an ubuntu user, i feel i've contributed more than my share to this page so i'll leave further improving of this article to others. Pizzaman79 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Most popular distribution

Hi. An anon recently disputed the claim that Ubuntu is the most popular distribution. I believe this claim is well backed by the sources provided (The Desktop Linux Survey, various sets of Distrowatch data, and Google Trends). Some of these sources are not authoritative enough by themselves, but all of them in conjunction are pretty strong evidence that Ubuntu is the most popular linux distribution. Specially considering that in each of these sources Ubuntu wins by a sizable margin (In the 2007 Desktop Linux Survey, it gets 30%, with the second being 20%; in all Distrowatch results it wins with a sizable margin (except in 2007, when PCLinuxOS comes close), and Distrowatch can be considered unfair to Ubuntu because it only counts as Ubuntu those who use GNOME (those using KDE count as Kubuntu, etc.), while all Mandriva users are counted as Mandriva (as far as I know). The Google trends data shows a drastic advantage to Ubuntu. The 2006 Desktop Linux Survey also shows a sizable advantage to Ubuntu. It is true that some of these sources are focused on linux on the Desktop, so someone could claim we are being unfair to Red Hat. But, AFAIK, the word "popular" is about the public at large, so this is well fit. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can produce more reliable surveys or statistics, we'll just have to use those. Also, although this is Google data gain, don't forget about Google Insights: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=Ubuntu%2CMandriva%2CFedora%2CRed%20Hat%2COpenSUSE&geo=&date=&clp=&cmpt=q —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altonbr (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting set of data from Google Insights: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=Ubuntu%2CWindows%20XP%2CWindows%20Vista%2COS%20X&geo=&date=&clp=&cmpt=q. But can you also see how I can skew my own statistics? Here is another example, not in favour of Ubuntu vs Windows: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=Ubuntu%2CWindows&geo=&date=&clp=&cmpt=q Altonbr (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Trends comparison: This is false/unreliable data since Google Trends searches also include the zulu word "ubuntu" therefore inflating Ubuntu linux's real data. (I don't see a way of excluding the zulu word from the data, if anyone has the knowledge, then modify it.) Contrarily to what was written, Debian has actually gained over the past 12 months while Ubuntu has lost according to Distrowatch. Nevertheless, this is an encyclopedia, not a marketing campaign, please refrain from belittling other distros; try to inform rather than downplay/demean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VShaka (talk • contribs) 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And there are also popular hats as well as inspiring nammes such as "vista", which are both more prominent than ubuntu (philosophy). In any case, we're not belittling, simply stating what has been reported by reliable sources. ffm 19:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

The current IPA pronunciation uses the same vowel sound for all three U's in Ubuntu (ie, "oo-boon-too"). It seems to me like "oo-bun-too" is the more popular form, but I've seen both. How should we handle this? Scott Ritchie (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"oo-boon-too" is correct, "oo-bun-too" is more popular (but that's my OR). I think we should handle it as is, using the official one. --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In "System > About Ubuntu > About the Name", it is stated that the pronunciation is "oo-BOON-too" Altonbr (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "oo-boon-too" is the official pronunciation, which is what must be used. darkwind6000  ^(talk) 17:32, 2 April 2009 (PST).

Haha, it is so funny to see that there is a thread talking about Ubuntu's pronunciation in here, considering that I JUST added the correct pronunciation to the article. :P

But yes, "Ooh (or "oo")-boon-too" is the correct pronunctiation, you can even hear the former president of Africa (where the word "Ubuntu" derives from) pronounce it "Ooh-boon-too". ;) TheSameGuy (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? Since when is Africa a country? :P ffm 04:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, what I meant was former president of South Africa. :P On a side note, someone has tagged the pronunciation of Ubuntu with a "Citation needed". Problem though is that a citation is NOT needed... that's how it is pronounced..., so how should I go about this? TheSameGuy (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I want to make this clear (about conflicting names with philosophy)

Ubuntu is an IMPORTANT philosophy of idealism from Africa. The OS, while receiving more queries for the philosophy, is NOWHERE close in importance and the former. Ubuntu should be the page of the philosophy, and having a link on that page as:

This article is about an African philosophy; for the operating system, see Ubuntu (operating system). For other uses, see Ubuntu (disambiguation).

Now, can you tell me why Spore is a biological body, Link is not a Video Game character, Fedora is a felt hat, and Ubuntu is an Operative System? Does this make sense? --Fixman (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense, but you aren't dealing with reasonable people either. I'll vote your way now! Fredio54 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support, *Support redirect to disambiguation, or *Oppose followed by an explanation, then sign your opinion with -~~~~

• Support moving over, it makes sense to me. It was after all the OS that took the name of the philosophy. Chillum 21:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Hamlet, the Shakespeare play, took after and was based upon the Scandanavian legend of the same name; but that doesn't stop the Hamlet article being about the former, (with the latter at Hamlet (legend)); since it's more widely known and more notable. That's not an isolated example, either: look everywhere on WP, and the page without clarifying brackets is almost always either the most common usage or a disambiguation; not the one which came first chronologically. -- simxp (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Either make Ubuntu a redirect to Ubuntu (disambiguation) or make Ubuntu redirect to Ubuntu (philosophy). For many reasons:
  • The ones above
  • An OS should not be given more importance than a philosophy of life that teaches us to be good to the others.

SF007 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Irrelevant. we are talking about its location on a encyclopedia, NOT its historical/moral/philosophical value. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - The Ubuntu Linux distribution used to be titled Ubuntu (Linux distribution) and that was succinct and concise, just the way an encyclopedia should. The OS was named after the philosophy, not the other way around. - Team4Technologies (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Irrelevant. The previous name of the article is of no importance in deciding its proper name, and chronological historical order is also irrelevant as stated by simxp. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Nobody fought a war with blood and mortar in favor of the operating system. Thousands of people died in support of the principles of the philosophy. jonathon (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - cfr. my reply to SF007 above. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Etymology is irrelevant. "Importance" is irrelevant. Usage is the only important aspect. The term is more commonly-used to refer to the OS, so the OS belongs at the root article. Our naming policies are very clear about this, which is why the page got to its current title in the first place. The former discussion is at Talk:Ubuntu (disambiguation)#Revisiting primary topic, and is required reading. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that if you were in Africa or African, you may disagree with the usage. - Team4Technologies (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

last time i checked this was the English wikipedia... You are aware that this is just one language among thousends and that we have encyclopedias with different languages that cater to different cultural audiences, right? is not like the english encyclopedia is the world's encyclopedia, it's just th largest of its localized versions. Compare es:Mono with Mono. Maybe in the Bantu Language encyclopedia, the philosophy would have the naked title, but alas, this is not Bantu, and we have to cater to the cultural frame of reference of our target audience. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Etymology is irrelevant. "Importance" is irrelevant. Usage is the only important aspect." How can you say that? I don't think that makes much sense... and regarding the archived version, the consensus was to change the article about the distro to Ubuntu (operating system)

• Oppose Per Chris and WP:NAME. It is the most common current usage of Ubuntu, and should therefore be here. --Falcorian ^(talk) 22:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chris. Team4Technologies is right that usage patterns vary across the world, but as it stands globally Ubuntu the operating system is a much more associated with Ubuntu than the Ubuntu philosophy. Scott Ritchie (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide citation for your claim of global acknowledgment of "Ubuntu" as an Operating System and not a philosophy? - Team4Technologies (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have it, and would be open to being convinced the other way if you can provide citation otherwise. As it stands, Ubuntu the philosophy is a word used in southern Africa and Ubuntu the operating system is used by the majority of people on the internet which, admittedly, isn't too representative of the world. Scott Ritchie (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - While the OS might more commonly be the referent (especially in the west) I think it makes much more sense to have the philosophy as the root page, and then the OS as Ubuntu_(Operating_System) or something similar. My reasoning is quite simple - the operating system doesn't just use the syntactical construction "Ubuntu" but specifically uses the term in reference to its philosophical meaning. To quote from wiki, "The "Ubuntu" distribution of the Linux computer operating system is inspired by the concept, arguing that it "brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world."". Because of this, it isn't simply two referents sharing the same syntactical form - it is a case where a later referent intentionally adopts the name of the former in order to imply meaning. As a trivial (and imaginary) example, say a band called "The Brothers Karamazov" becomes incredibly popular, even moreso than the book, though the band explicitly acknowledges that they took the name from Dostoevsky in order to suggest many of the same themes in their work. The wiki article - in my mind - should still point first and foremost to the book, as the band's name doesn't make sense without the book first existing. In the same sense, the OS being called Ubuntu depends upon that syntactical construction previously referring to an African philosophy. I do understand that wiki's policy is normally most common current usage, but in a case of proper names as referents such as this, entomology isn't simply a matter of historical curiosity, but paramount to understanding why the name "Ubuntu" refers to a GNU/Linux OS. V krishna (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Counter exaple: The Rolling Stones. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with Chris and others who opposed. Majority of the users who search for "Ubutnu" want to read about the OS not the philosophy behind it.-Abhishek (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Support - Which existed first...

• Which existed first is irrelevant. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Its most helpful to people if they find the article they are looking for. Its not a statement about importance or war. Its just what much more people are searching for. Although I don't think it should be called ubuntu. Better ubuntu linux or something like that. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

  It isn't called "Ubuntu Linux" by it's provider, anymore than Debian GNU/Linux is called Debian Linux. ffm 23:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose per WP:NAME, and as others have explained above: history is irrelevant, "emotional impact" is irrelevant, frequency of usage is what counts. The vast majority of people who go to "Ubuntu" are looking for the Linux distro, and setting this up to be the default choice is not a value judgment, merely a practical matter. Above all, Wiki is not paper, we can revisit this issue if one or the other meaning of Ubuntu becomes more or less used. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 08:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per above, Ubuntu as an OS is more popular than the philosophy. ffm 23:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. While "Ubuntu the distro" is the most popular meaning to people using the Internet from developed countries, "Ubuntu the philosophy" is very probably the most popular meaning from a broader, global perspective. Accordingly, we shouldn't make "Ubuntu the distro" the primary meaning. While Wikipedia is indeed currently read mostly using the Internet and from developed countries, I think it's a mistake to prioritise that audience. — Matt Crypto 14:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Matt, you may be right that more people in the world care about Ubuntu-the-philosophy than Ubuntu-the-Linux-distro. But those of us who Oppose this measure don't see that as particularly relevant. I see it as a purely practical question: is someone typing "Ubuntu" into the Wikipedia search box likely to get what they want on the first try? Since the overwhelming majority of users right now are looking for the Linux distro, that should be the default destination. As I have pointed out many times before Wiki is not paper... this is a decision that could be reversed in the blink of an eye (cf. recent edit wars to this article) if more people start looking for the other meanings of "Ubuntu". A redirect is not a value judgment about the "importance" of the two topics, and it is not set in stone. I don't know why everyone is reading politics and bias into this issue... :-(

The Wikipedia:Disambiguation page gives some useful guidelines for this question, anyway (emphasis mine):

“ When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should be used for the title of the article on that topic. ”

Does anyone see a reason why that shouldn't apply here? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 14:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Who says the Linux Distribution is "well known"? Maybe those in the Linux community, but that's NOT the public at large. - Team4Technologies (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • In August, there were 12515 hits for the philosophy, and 128419 hits for the main "ubuntu" article, which redirects to the Linux distribution. In January, when the main "ubuntu" article was a disambig page, there were 123k page views for "Ubuntu (Linux distribution)" and 9k for "Ubuntu (philosophy)". I think those results speak for themselves. Ubuntu the Linux distribution is well known among people who visit Wikipedia, and those are the people for whom this redirect is useful. As I've said before, it's a convenience feature, not a value judgment about the articles or their subjects. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - ""Ubuntu the philosophy" is very probably the most popular meaning from a broader, global perspective" <--- that is pure and utter nonsense. 1.- Ubuntu is a southafrican word in Bantu. It is used by peoples from some parts of subsaharan Africa to refer to a philosophical concept for which there are other names in western tradition. it isn't "global" nor "broader" than any non-western terms, believing this is a prime example of ethnocentrism and cultural imperialism, giving undeserved importance to some foreign cultural concept just because it's "third-worldy", or "african" and passing this as "global" and "broader". 2.- THIS IS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ENCYCLOPEDIA!. it is NOT the world's broader and global encyclopedia, it is not a culture-neutral repository of knowledge for mankind, it is ONLY the largest localized instance of a multicultural project. M U L T Icultural, NOT A-cultural. Trying to introduce global relevance and criterias for inclusion is just contributing to the already dangerously spread idea that the english wikipedia is THE encyclopedia. Talk about cultural imperialism. Apart from that, in the factual discussion above about the comparative relevance, i agree with everything said by ǝɹʎℲxoɯ. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bolding, capitalising and spacing your text makes it harder to read, and adds little but the impression that you're rather emotional about something. Any chance we could debate this calmly and rationally, rather than attempting to overpower each other with an assault of typography? Righty then. My point is simply that when we deliberate as to whether an overloaded term has a primary meaning or not, we should be careful that we aren't swayed by our natural bias towards free culture and technology -- topics that Ubuntu Linux and Wikipedia both pertain to -- or, more generally, by a bias for Western culture. The fact that we are the ENGLISH LANGUAGE ENCYCLOPEDIA, as you so enthusiastically shouted above, seems neither here nor there in that regard. — Matt Crypto 06:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it makes it easier to read. Emotions help motivate us, with out them we may do nothing. I see nothing that says the discussion is not rational. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing AGAINST emotion per se <-- *but* annotating T E X T can be "overdone", no?! — Matt Crypto 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment While we're quoting Wikipedia:Disambiguation, how about this:

“ If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". ”

I'd say that the above pretty definitely qualifies as "extended discussion"... -- simxp (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Simxp, it's a valid point. I hesitate to follow it here, however, since the dispute seems to largely be an emotional argument, rather than an actual dispute about which article is more sought-after. Many of the Supporters of this proposal seem to think that we're belittling or marginalizing the philosophy by making the Linux distribution the primary topic, which is not the intention. But no one seems to actually dispute the fact that about 10X more wikipedia visitors are looking for the Linux article. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Page hits does not take into account unique visitors and with the frequent updates to the Linux Distro's page, it's very possible that it's the same circle of people are checking it each day/week and causing the hits to jump, so hits aren't a good indicator of global popularity. Going back to having a disambiguation page would really solve a lot of the arguments and define lines of importance by taking those lines away.

If you think the popular and vernacular usage always gets the nod in Wiki, check out corn. - Team4Technologies (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Then what is such an indicator? ffm 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but the burden of proof isn't on me. - Team4Technologies (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? You're arguing that page-hits are not a valid metric, and are advocating a change. ffm

Yes. - Team4Technologies (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that the burden is on you? ffm 13:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not the one claiming that the Linux Distro is more popular than the Philosophy. I don't see how one could be name-preferential over the other, hence why I advocate for a return to the disambiguation page. The onus is on those people that claim the Linux Distro deserves primary name recognition to explain why. When "popularity" is brought up, I ask for evidence. Any advertiser will tell you that page hits alone do not constitute popularity. Please read burden of proof link before replying as you may think I'm asking for one thing when I'm asking for something else. - Team4Technologies (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Page hits may not correspond to "popularity" (whatever that actually means), but they do indicate what people are looking for when they type wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu. Which is what the redirect is all about. In my opinion, there is no need to worry about popularity or topical importance or perceived slights or anything like that... it's simply a matter of providing a convenient redirect for most of the visitors to the page. And page hits clearly show they are overwhelmingly looking for the Linux distro. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more correctly it should be convenient redirect for most of the visits rather than visitors, since it can be same people generating the visits. I'm not suggesting it is the same people, just can be. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Those page hits can be explained as the result of technocultural imperialism that is biased against anything other than Western European culture, that Wikipeida suffers from.jonathon (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, we still currently have more tecnhocultural imperialist ubuntu linux visitors than we do ubuntu philosophy visitors. Scott Ritchie (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY! And we may as well redirect our "Ubuntu" page to cater to our hordes of technocultural imperialist visitors, since the redirect implies absolutely no bias or value judgment about the other articles under the Ubuntu name. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 20:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Godwin's Corollary for usage of 'technocultural imperialism'? Because there really should be. --Falcorian ^(talk) 20:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Hitler". There, I said it. Godwin +1. - Team4Technologies (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh :-) Whatever the corollary is, I hope it's highly self-referential. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 00:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• *Support redirect to disambiguation I use Ubuntu Linux, but I think is not the most important, activity and certainly not the only one. And, BTW, there is also a need to change the disambiguation page, because the header is misleading: "Ubuntu is a computer operating system that uses the Linux kernel. Ubuntu may also refer to:...". If you look at the phrase this implies the other uses are things named otherwise, but with a secondary name which is "Ubuntu", but, in reality, for all of them the primary name is Ubuntu (and in many cases, like the philosophy, the only one). --Camahuetos (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Chris, above, and all the others. Guidelines are there for a reason. Let's use them. Jjatria (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Per Chris and WP:NAME. Nobody had ever heard of Ubuntu before the OS, outside of southafrica. I haven't ever heard the term applied to the philosophy in a non-OS related source. Other examples abound: Compare Ford with Ford, where the former is a geographical concept of critical historical significance, and the following is the name of some auto manufacturer. Kopete means "booze" in Chile, and it has an almost sociological meaning that could very well merit an article on Chilean alcohol-consumption habits, but Kopete points to some IM-client. Firefox points to a web browser instead of the animal, the fictional plane, the novel or the scooter, all of which preceded the browser chronologically. etc etc etc. Gorgonzola (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I just noticed that of the five articles refered in the desambiguation page, one is directly related to the OS, one is only a stub, one makes no mention either of the OS or the philosophy, and the other two (this and this) mention the linux distro and the philosophy. I strongly believe that the criteria for asignation of the title is clear, if you consider that the OS is more pervasive than the philosophy even in the articles referred to by the disambiguation page. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. As one of many Ubuntu users(both the OS and ascribing to the philosophy), I'd just like to add that when I went looking for 'Ubuntu', back in the days before editing, I was looking for the Linux distro.

Comment While I'm as friendly as the next guy towards a survey, this one seems to have gotten a bit off track amidst the differing viewpoints of a myriad of users. Vu1kan (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Demands Sanity - Wikipedia is losing it. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Ubuntu, and any other term that has several instances/meanings should lead to a disambiguation page, where people select what specification they want to follow. Like browsing in a bloody dictionary, for Pete's sake! --89.180.191.40 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaunty Jackalope

Jaunty Jackalope, is new ubuntu code name. See http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10040226-16.html --75.150.49.61 (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaunty will be Ubuntu 9.04. Ubuntu 8.10 will be something else. https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2008-September/000481.html Abhishek (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

8.10 is still The Intrepid Ibex--The Saxon (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia switched to Ubuntu

I just wanted to inform anyone interested that wikipedia has switched to the Ubuntu operating system, as mentioned here:

• http://blogs.computerworld.com/ubuntu_scores_major_wikipedia_win
• http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081009-wikipedia-adopts-ubuntu-for-its-server-infrastructure.html

I would insert that info myself but I'm not sure were to place it, nor if it's appropriate... SF007 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu 8.10 (Intrepid Ibex) released

• http://releases.ubuntu.com/releases/intrepid/
• https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2008-October/000116.html
• http://www.ubuntu.com/news/ubuntu-8.10-desktop
• http://www.ubuntu.com/news/ubuntu-8.10-server

Altonbr (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation link 74 appears to be a spam link.

Within the text of the article, citation link 74 is listed as an example of an online publication relating to Ubuntu. The fact that the website linked to offers software available for Ubuntu isn't what I would consider a publication relating to Ubuntu. The link points to [1]. 116.212.217.2 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the whole lot. The only secondary source is to a statement by Shuttleworth that an ecosystem had sprung up; all the links were advertising, leading to various projects' home pages. Gone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

DistroWatch "sources"

The references titled "distro05", "distro06" and "distro07" are automatically generated. As such, they are no more valuable than Google results pages. These should be replaced with a source written by a human which describes the trend alluded to in the article. If this doesn't happen, they'll be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Linux distro or an independent operating system?

Since all the GNU/Linux community consider Linux an open source operating system, which can be customized and distributed, and Ubuntu is a Linux distro, what is the reason for saying that Ubuntu is a "operating system based on Linux" (independent), instead of a Linux distro? Note that the official name of Debian, in which Ubuntu is based, is "Debian GNU/Linux", and even some distributions based on Ubuntu are referred as Linux distros, e.g., Linux Mint. If one refers to Ubuntu as an "operating system based on Linux", refers to an hypothetical independent kernel of Ubuntu derived from Linux (but different), and it's not the case. So, I would like to suggest changing the presentation of the article, making clear that Ubuntu is a distribution of Linux, not an operating system itself, for avoiding misconceptions of the readers. Fsolda (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not too sure what you are asking, the article states that it is based on Debian, and that it is a Linux Distro. Where are your indicated references made? ffm 03:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh #2 :p

Ubuntu is an operating system and a Linux distro too. All Linux distros are operating systems. Please make your point clear? - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the edit in question I think. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

While it's probably not necessary, I'll add that it seems clear to me that Ubuntu is not an operating system. If the kernel is by itself or not seems more debatable, but referring to a distro as an OS, is miss leading and has nothing to back it up. It's good the edits made to the contrary were undone.--Keithonearth (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I wrote

Ubuntu is a free computer operating system based on Debian GNU/Linux.

rather than

Ubuntu is a free distribution of the computer operating system Linux, based on the Debian distribution.

Is because Ubuntu is an operating system. It is based on Debian, which uses GNU and Linux quite heavily. The combination of GNU and Linux can be called an operating system because, using those tools, it is UNIX-like and UNIX-complete and UNIX is an operating system. A distribution is usually referred to as such because, while (usually) based on GNU and Linux, the maintainers will also package and distribute their operating system with different products, software and services (e.g. Ubuntu has Rhythmbox while OpenSUSE uses Banshee, etc.). Thus, Linux is not an operating system (nor is it a distribution, for that matter) and neither is GNU. The packaging of Linux and GNU together can be called an operating system (albeit bare boned) and when smaller entities such as software differ between Linux/GNU operating systems, it is more correct (or specific) to call them a distribution. Either is correct in this case, but calling it an operating system is more broad and on par with Windows or Mac than merely calling it a "Linux distribution". What are your thoughts Falcorian? Altonbr (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The case of Linux is different of Windows and Mac. Both Windows and Mac have their own kernels, and these kernels are not used by any other operating system. But it's not the case of Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution. The Linux community uses "Linux" not only for the kernel, but to any distribution including the kernel, the X11 Window System and the GNU components - this is also the reason for the claims of Richard Stallman to call the operating system "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux". Furthermore, nobody develop a software or driver "for Ubuntu", "for OpenSuSE", "for Mandriva", etc; but "for Linux". Fsolda (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Mach kernel is used in Mac OSX, GNU Hurd, MachTen, NEXTSTEP, Lites, and Unicos, to name a few. Oh, and people _do_ develop for the Ubuntu platform... In any case, you havn't been clear about what change you want. ffm 14:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No. These operating systems have derivatives of the Mach kernel, not the Mach kernel itself, differently of Ubuntu and other Linux distributions, which use the Linux kernel itself, not some Linux derivative. If one develop apps for running in the Ubuntu "platform", the program will run in any other Linux distribution, unless the program is for managing system packages using some specific configurations of Ubuntu, or any other Linux distro. Fsolda (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

About the change, my suggestion is saying in the first phrase: "Ubuntu is a distribution of Linux", not "Ubuntu is an operating system based on Linux", for making it more clear. Fsolda (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why complicate?!?! Is Ubuntu a car? a plane? a train? a website? NO? it is software that you can install "directly on hardware" to make a computer usable. And what do we call that? An Operating system!! right? It might be a Linux distro, but hey, then someone will want to call it a GNU/Linux distro, besides, "Operating System" is much more easy to understand than "Linux distribution". Articles are for a wide audience. Jerebin (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Example: I create a modified version of Microsoft Windows (it is possible!), does it suddently stops being an "operating system"? to be a "windows distribution"? Please keep it simple. Jerebin (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on which are the modifications. If the modifications are on the Windows kernel, you are making a new operating system derived from Windows. But if the modifications are in other things - bundled programs, another visual theme, etc; but using the Windows kernel, it's still Windows. Fsolda (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Still Windows? Then it's still an operating system. And why is this section titled "Linux distro or an independent operating system?"? Who's trying to call it an "independent" operating system? - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Since someone specifically asked my opinion ( how thoughtful :-) ), it is this: I prefer the version most similar to "Ubuntu is an OS based on Linux... blah blah", and believe this most correctly describes Ubuntu. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think phrasing the question as "or" is flawed. Yes, Ubuntu is an Operating System, specifically, it is a GNU/Linux Distribution. --Logotu (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

And also a Linux distro. Both of which are stated in the lead, but the second of which doens't need to be mentioned in the first paragraph/sentance. ffm 21:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's clarify this - I believe the original change was made as part of a wider move to avoid the GNU/Linux naming controversy by avoiding having to pick between "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" in the lede. Furthermore, both "Linux distribution" and "operating system" are valid, because all distros are operating systems. While the current compromise is not perfect, that's not the point of compromises. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The article characterizes Ubuntu as a "fork" of Debian. Currently, 4 out of 5 packages in Ubuntu come from straight from Debian without changes. Shouldn't the "fork" language, throughout the article, be changed to read "based on" or something which indicates that Ubuntu continues to pull in code from Debian regularly rather than truly "forking" off on its own? Ean Schuessler (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If you label Ubuntu as an independent OS, you must label Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and all the variants as independent OSs as well. In fact, Ubuntu desktop and Ubuntu Server differ quite substantially, so must each be called a different OS logically, if one accepts that the OS is Ubuntu and not Linux. Calling Ubuntu an independent OS is foolish. Many authors do indeed refer to it as Ubuntu Linux, and components for the OS are all called Linux components, not Ubuntu components. Ubuntu is a distro and always has been. Baaaaa! Perspectoff (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

.exe

Can this os read Windows executable files? -- penubag  (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In Wine it can. - Team4Technologies (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Limited number of applications only though. Check the database. -[[::User:Unpopular Opinion|Unpopular Opinion]] ([[::User talk:Unpopular Opinion|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Unpopular Opinion|contribs]]) 19:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this info guys. -- penubag  (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu can also run a whole host of emulators such as xen, virtualbox, kvm, vmware, etc... that can run windows itself allowing for many more windows executables to be ran. Chillum 04:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot

Surely a screenshot that is 95% desktop background is pointless. It would be more illustrative to have a screenshot with a few typical desktop applications running in it.87.194.156.49 (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, maybe a screen shot with Synaptic, and firefox or something. I'd be happy to make the screen shot if others agree with changing it. Bodsda (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea rCX (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Difficulty reading

Does anybody else find this article difficult to read with so many of the words linked to other articles? Bodsda (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. The lede has basically every noun linked. I've fixed this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The lede is much better now, thanks Chris. Quick question: If we link 'GNOME' to its page at the top of the article do we have to link every instance of the word throughout the rest of the article or not? I'm new to wiki editing so im not too sure on these things. Thanks Bodsda (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No we don't link every instance of the word. Usually linking to an article once is sufficient. WP:MOS is a good place to start reading. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 'Onpopular Opinion' i read the link and it clarifies some things I was curious of. I'l do some cleanup on this article and make it a bit more readable. Thanks alot for the info you put on my Talk page, I'l make sure I have a read of them before I edit anything. Thanks again Bodsda (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

To quote WP:MOSLINK:

this is usually on the first occurrence of the term, although the subsequent linking of an important item distant from its previous occurrence in an article may occasionally be appropriate in a table or in a subsection to which readers may jump directly, either within the article or via a section-link from another article.

ffm 14:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok so a word should not be linked twice in a paragraph or near each other, so does that mean that from these examples 1)replacing the default GNOME system used by Ubuntu (Para 3 of lede) 2)New releases of Ubuntu coincide a month after GNOME releases. (Para 1 under history) Should the latter be linked? Also the quote says that links should be there if in a table, what about the list of Ubuntu Variants, which has gnome linked in the first 3 bullets of the list, should only one of them be linked? Bodsda (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mobile netbook release of Ubuntu

I apologize if this was discussed previously in the Archives, but would it be prudent to have this page include information about Ubuntu being offered on netbooks? - Team4Technologies (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Variants section. Also it has its own article, I cant see what it would add to the article either. Bodsda (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Non related screenshots

The screenshots in this article do not seem to convey anything appropriate to the sections which they are in. (except the kubuntu one) The main intrepid picture show the GNOME desktop environment and a picture, which doesnt really convey ubuntu as an operating system. The add/remove screenshot has nothing to do with its section "History and development process". The 6.06 screenshot shows nothing more than what is already conveyed by the intrepid screenshot and also has nothing to do with its section "Features". Finally we have the server screenshot which, again, has nothing to do with its section "Alternate Installation". I'm reasonably new to wikipedia so i dont know if this is normal structure for pictures in articles, but to me those screenshots dont add anything useful to the article. I'd be happy to replace them if people agree with me. Thanks, Bodsda (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Replacing / moving them seems like the thing to do. I look forward to seeing your work. --Falcorian ^(talk) 21:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And what do you propose? Deletion? SF007 (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose I add different screenshots tonight. Bodsda (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

New/moved screenshots for sure. The article is starting to feel dated with it's lack of media (sounds, video, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.94.160 (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikibook

I suggest a wikibook about Ubuntu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.84.130.2 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is one, it needs a lot of work though. Bodsda (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu/Linux on Windows?

Hello fellow editors, I'm not 100% sure if this is real/possible, but here is are some screens of Ubuntu/Linux running on Windows:

http://hacktolive.org/wiki/Portable_Ubuntu_for_Windows

-Jerebin

Just tried it and it is true! Jerebin (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's true. I have been using it for awhile.—Sandahl (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean I have been using Ubuntu for quite awhile.—Sandahl (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Virtualisation is very real and has been around for quite a while. --Aseld ^talk 07:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this has been added to the article now: [2]. I'm not convinced that this is really that notable – other than using a different virtualisation method it doesn't seem that different from running under VMware or VirtualBox. It certainly seems weird to call the package "Portable Ubuntu" when it is less portable than Ubuntu is to start with … --James (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Security on Ubuntu

Why is there no mention of security in Ubuntu? Apart from the line about closed ports for added security? --Neutralle (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course, there should be a security subsection, most likely under the package classification and support section (since supported packages get security updates). Scott Ritchie (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

FA renomination

I noted this article has recently got big work on, and I think its good for FA again. S I'm making this survey before nominating.

• Nom + Support Fixman^{Praise me} 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that to be eligible, the article needs to be expanded five fold, which would be pretty darn big based on the pre-existing Ubuntu Page. - Team4Technologies (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of WP:DYK. Featured Articles have no "Must have been expanded by a factor of N" requirements. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Needs Work I do not believe it is ready for FA. It was tough to get it up to GA, and not very much has happened since then. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu based off Debian being a criticism

I would like to say I agree with this edit and the reasoning behind it. Chillum 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That edit misrepresents the source, please re-read the whole source. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess! I suppose it's always nice to have a talk page section devoted to the general accclamation of one of your edits... ;-) -- simxp (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How does removing that section misrepresent a source? Am I misunderstanding you? Chillum 14:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chillum, even the most hardcore ubuntu hater would not see the fact the Ubuntu is a fork of Debian as a criticism... (And the sources do not seem to make it a criticism) SF007 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Removing the section is fine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not still mention it somewhere? If you think basing an operating system off of beta software is a good thing, then we could just put it in the first sentence and let readers decide.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu's history and development process is extensively discussed in the section unsurprisingly entitled "History and development process"... -- simxp (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one that wrote that edit. I didn't realize that this was actually already mentioned in the History section. Anyway, here comes the bare bones critique: I think many Ubuntu users don't know that Canonical (the company that "owns" Ubuntu) makes money by selling Ubuntu-related services to companies (similar to what Red Hat does). I believe it is morally questionable for Canonical (Ubuntu) to be making money off of the Debian developers work. Its like if Microsoft decides to scrap Windows and start to sell a rebranded FreeBSD by taking advantage of the BSD license. How can anybody use Ubuntu, when they know the history behind it? Anyway, I thought it relevant to point this out. Thanks. VShaka (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

First, the moral issue: Debian is licensed under the GPL. The GPL specifically allows commercial re-use. If the creators had wanted to disallow that, then they would have used a different license. I license all my software under the GPL as I consider someone making a profit from my work to be a lesser evil than that particular restriction on freedom.

Debian incorporates modules with a number of licenses, not just the GPL.Perspectoff (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the moral issue is kind of irrelevant here; this is an encyclopedia, and any criticism must be validly referenced *as a criticism*. Listing it as such without such a reference is WP:OR. --Aseld ^talk 13:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Operating system family

This post refers to this edit, which replaced "Unix-like" with "GNU/Linux" under operating system family. I disagree with this edit, but I suspect that the issue may be contentious and I don't want to start an edit war so I'm seeking comment here.

My argument is as follows: Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. Moreover, it refers to a *specific* kernel - i.e., the one written in the early '90s by Linus - not a family, whereas "Unix-like" unambiguosly refers to a group of operating systems united by a similar design, encompassing UNIX, Solaris, the BSDs and all operating systems that use the Linux kernel.

Misread the edit - new argument below.

GNU/Linux is a specific operating system, not a family. The term can refer to only one operating system, that created by combining Linux and the GNU software. Each Linux distribution is just that - a distribution, not a new OS. "Unix-like" unambiguously refers to a group of operating systems united by a similar design, encompassing UNIX, Solaris, the BSDs and all operating systems that use the Linux kernel.

Thoughts? --Aseld ^talk 13:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Unix-like" is a compromise to avoid lame edit wars over the GNU/Linux naming controversy. If there's any argument over the correct term, that's the one we should use. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the community has to decide. Ubuntu, Fedora, Slackware, etc. are operating systems by their own right or are only Linux distributions? I agree with the statement that Linux is an operating system, and Ubuntu is only a distribution of Linux. Some time ago I tried to change the statement "Ubuntu is an operating system" to "Ubuntu is a Linux distribution", unsuccessfully. Other users insisted that Ubuntu and any other Linux distributions are operating system by their own right until my patience reached the limit and, for not starting an edition war, I decided to agree with them, at least in the article (but, if one ask me what operating system I have in my computer, I will reply: ""I use Linux" instead of "I use Ubuntu"). So, if Ubuntu is an operating system by its own right, so Ubuntu belong to the Linux family. Instead, if Ubuntu is not an operating system, but a Linux distribution, the article should be corrected to: "Ubuntu is a Linux distribution based on Debian". Saying that "Ubuntu is a unix-like operating system", without mention to Linux, is an incoherence. Fsolda (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid editing the article until a consensus is reached. We don't want a war here.

I disagree. Linux is not a *family* of operating systems; it is a kernel (or a single operating system, depending on where you stand in the Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate). In the Linux article itself, which uses the operating system infobox, the OS family is listed as Unix-like. I argue that, by extension, this family should apply to all variants of GNU/Linux, including Ubuntu.

Saying that Ubuntu is a Unix-like OS without mention to Linux *in that sentence* is not incoherent, it is a statement of fact. Of course the fact that Ubuntu uses the Linux kernel should be mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox under "OS family". In fact, it's already in the infobox, under "Kernel type".

Again: please no edits to "OS family" until consensus is reached here. --Aseld ^talk 14:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but "unix-like" is not a "family" of operating systems. It's only an informal way for indicating that the operating system has similarities to Unix. Systems like BSD, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and others are directly based on the original Unix system, and they are recognized as "Unix systems" by The Open Group, so it's true saying these systems belong to a "Unix" family. But the same doesn't apply to Linux (or GNU/Linux, the choice between these two names is not important). Linux was built from scratch, and, despite its similarities to Unix, it's not a Unix system and constitute a family of operating systems by itself. The same happen with Windows, which don't belong to any other major family. But, if we consider the Linux distros as operating systems by their own right, then they are part of the "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" family. Moreover, while the Unix systems follow the specifications of the Open Group, the Linux systems follow the specifications of the Linux Standard Base.

A "family" of operating systems should be compared to a families of languages, religions, live beings, etc. i. e., two elements belong to the same family if both have the same origin. I will compare the relationship between Linux and Unix to the relationship between the Esperanto language and the Indo-European family. Languages like English, Portuguese and Polish belong to the Indo-European family because all of them come from a common "proto-indo-european" language. The vocabulary of Esperanto is based in the Indo-European languages, but it is a constructed language instead of a derivative of the proto-indo-european language, so we cannot state that Esperanto belongs to the Indo-European family. However, is there some named "Indo-European-like" language family where we should include Esperanto? No, certainly. Esperanto belongs to a language family which contain only the same Esperanto, and also Ido, which is a derivative. The same happens to Linux. It's based on Unix, but it's not a derivative of Unix, so it constitutes a separate family. Fsolda (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Unix-like only means "not Unix, but similar to Unix" which is applicable to the BSDs as well. I think the correct description is "GNU with Linux kernel". The BSDs don't use GNU nor Linux, so they are just "Unix-like". VShaka (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a good solution is setting the info about the system family as in the German Wikipedia:

\ GNU/Linux

\ Debian

\ Ubuntu

It's more informative, and certainly a better solution than simply mentioning "unix-like". Fsolda (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of the screenshot

At first the icons of Ubuntu desktop were changed, and now they have been replaced with black boxes? I agree that if we intend to show the user how Ubuntu looks right from the box, that nothing should be altered but I don't think black-boxing everything is a solution. Now I don't know the Wikipedia copyright laws but the icons we're censoring out here are the Ubuntu and Firefox icons, yet they are shown in the Ubuntu and Firefox article respectively! So we're allowed to show the Ubuntu logo on the Ubuntu page, but not a smaller version of it, 2 cm under it? Can't we just use the same licenses we use on these two pictures? This doesn't make sense to me. --BiT (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I replaced it with a "normal version" of the screenshot. That was censored because some people on wikipedia and wikimedia commons don't like non-free logos/images. SF007 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Neurolysis put a {{deletable image-caption}} on the image, although it's not appearing in the rendered view, possibly due to some infobox problem. TRS-80 (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, User:JamesHenstridge points out that the Ubuntu icon comes from the ubuntu-artwork package which is licensed under CC-BY-SA and GPL, so only {{Trademark}} applies, the only problem remaining is the Firefox logo (which is well known to be non-free). FWIW I don't see the censored image as an acceptable replacement. TRS-80 (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Ubuntu and its derivatives change every 6 months, sometimes dramatically. Guidebooks, "tutorials", references, and websites that are 2-3 years old are misleading and confusing, and are not relevant to current versions of Ubuntu (and its derivatives). Many of the references and "Further Reading links" are mere advertising for books about Ubuntu versions that are long out of date and not even supported any longer. They provide a disservice to the community by providing currently inaccurate information. These have been commented out and will be removed unless valid justification for their retention can be made.

References pertinent to currently supported versions of Ubuntu should be retained, but there should be some effort to designate that the reference is applicable to a specific version of Ubuntu. Passeportout (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu Release Table

Current Release Table is, in My opinion, bloated. My proposition is to make it look more like the one from Debian release. I've made a sample (Ubuntu Release Table) to show the new look. List of changes:

• Removed Ordinal Numbers. Maybe it was a mistake? It looks cleaner though..
• Removed Alpha codenames as a) they aren't either important or informant and b) Ubuntu Developers has dropped them in favor of simple Alpha status
• Removed tons of references to Release names, release dates, support dates - they are simple to find and not helpful in this table. Two exceptions are:
  • Codename of the next Release
  • Release date of Current Release
  • Maybe we should also keep references to End of Support for releases?
• Added colors to Support column. It looks cleaner and more readable. At least IMO.

It would be nice to add column with highlighted release notes. Some major changes (like droping PPC support, switching to Pulseaudio etc.)

KrzysztofKlimonda (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that kind of tables a lot, they add "bloat" to the article, in my opinion MAYBE it was better to removed them or put them on another page... SF007 (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it as too many color, two were enough: supported and non-supported (or maybe a third color for alpha versions) - But I think the yellow color is not needed, what defines "old release"? Is Ubuntu 8.04 old? Just scrap that color and change it to green. SF007 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that this table is duplicated (There is second one with colors at List of Ubuntu releases) so I agree with SF007 that it should be removed from Ubuntu completely. The second one is still too detailed in my opinion. I've removed yellow color, changed color meaning to just "Unsupported Release", "Supported Release" and "Future Release": URT mockup. KrzysztofKlimonda (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool, that way is better, only a small remark: 6.06 LTS is still supported (and maybe change 9.04 to future? but since it is almost out does not make a big difference...) SF007 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed table from main article but this change was reverted. I'm not going to "rerevert" it as obviously someone thinks we should discuss this change further. So the question is if we should keep this (or mine) table or remove it. FWIW, I have to agree with SF007 that keeping it in the main article dosen't have to much sense. Especially when we have an article focused on Ubuntu releases with the same table. edit: and i've forgotten to sign myself.. KrzysztofKlimonda (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would remove the text and keep the table. A table is like 500 words. Similar to the saying a picture is like a 1000 words. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and added the table back in. If you prefer it can be listed on the side next to the text. Similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_Ubuntu_releases&oldid=288469997   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Kubuntuoffice.png

---

An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus.

Ubuntu Main Meaning

Although being a linux (sometimes ubuntu) user, I strongly disagree with the fact that ubuntu's first entrance is the OS and not the philosophy concept (from where its name was picked) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.36.36.177 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick reply to this. I would say that more people think of Ubuntu linux when they search for that word than the philosophical meaning. Do a search on google for Ubuntu Linux and one for Ubuntu Philosophy - you'll see what I mean. Also, you'll see the latter also returns a lot of results pertaining to the OS.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

8.vendor support

Just ordered an AMD64 (LE-1660) socket AM2 base unit from Meshcomputers.com with Ubuntu. SLUGLOVING (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What really constitutes a release?

Ubuntu's often cited superiority to Debian is the notion that it makes "releases" every six months. I don't think it is fair, however, that Ubuntu acts as if these releases and their LTS (long term support) releases are the same thing. In my opinion, the LTS releases are the real releases and the 6-month state bookmarking is just a publicity stunt. From the perspective of an organization using the system for production work they cannot realistically run off anything but the LTS releases and the 6-month releases don't exist. Specifically, I would think that LTS users cannot upgrade to interim releases without voiding their support contracts. In contrast, all Debian releases are "supported" with security fixes and updates and come out roughly every 18 months. By this measure, the Debian release cycle beats Ubuntu by a full six months. I think this duality should be reflected in any part of this article which promotes the marketing-based "6 month release cycle" of Ubuntu. Ean Schuessler (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Ubuntu makes multiple releases in order to be productive not only for Ubuntu but for the whole Linux community, especially from the sense of having the platform that is trying to keep pace with the technology. The rate of technology growth is such that an OS, like WinXP, has to be able to grow or it has significant problems adapting to kind of use that is needed. Debian is wonderful, truly, but Ubuntu isn't Debian. Debian is more for professionals because of the support while Ubuntu is for enthusiasts and personal use. It's not exactly designed to be that way, but that seems to be the way it works. - Team4Technologies (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is completely irrelevant I'm afraid. Canonical call each of their normal and LTS releases by a new name, a new number and refer to it as a release. That is what we go by, not by whether or not you feel this is right or not.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)