Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 29 June 2006

Template:AIDnom

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

Ubuntu has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Archive

• Threads starting up to September 2005

Too 'pro'

This article seems a little too pro Ubuntu, are there any controversies, scams, or bad new reports about it? It can;t all be good news, can it?

Please don't confuse NPOV with false balance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There are problems with Ubuntu. One of them is that it does not come with GCC preinstalled. I personally came across this whilst helping someone to isntall his USB modem. The drivers needed to be compiled from source. -- Scott w 08:55, 19 Febuary 2006 (GMT)

Not many distrobutions install compilation tools by default. It is usually an option to select in the install procedure (it is in Fedora, Mandriva and SuSE IIRC). This isn't a problem really anyway as running 'sudo apt-get install build-tools' or using synaptic to install them should do the trick - as they are on the CD, again, IIRC. -Localzuk 09:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a problem. Windows doesn't come with Visual Studio preinstalled either. Not that I'd think Windows is a good example. Instead it might be usefull to mention that not all hardware vendors support Ubuntu (yet). Along with a note about the hardware certifying. --Easyas12c 18:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My problem is that many drivers are built from source instead of binaries. Take that modem driver for example. My friend was unable to access the internet to get GCC which was needed to install his modem. Another driver I can name off the top of my head is the NVidia drivers. There's no chance of installing these without GCC. -- Scott w 19:20, 24 April 2006 (GMT)

This is not an issue with Ubuntu - it is an issue with driver providers. It would have no place in the article as it is unsourced conjecture and storytelling. -Localzuk 17:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The ubuntu-calendar thing

This paragraph is a bit silly, IMHO... Come on, a whole paragraph (in this not so big article) devoted to some discontinued package not even included in the default distribution!?

Agreed. I've pulled it; maybe if someone wants to re-write it as a blurb under the "distinctive features" that'd be a bit better? Ubernostrum 21:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

ViperSnake151 16:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC) I'll do that!

Blurb or no blurb it's still a largely irrelevant and trivial fact. I'd say remove it; it's not very encyclopedic anyway.

In my opinion it's worth a mention, because it left an impression in a lot of peoples' minds when Ubuntu was just taking off. Googling gives 227,000 results. Twinxor t 08:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I say put it back in somewhere near the bottom of the article. It's worthy of a mention and makes the article read less like an infomercial.--DMAJohnson 15:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I'm asking myself is, "what does a reader want to learn when he comes to read an article about Ubuntu?" Does he want to learn about one particular package that caused controversy in 2005 and was abandoned? Probably not. So I still think it should go.

And as a reply to Twinxor's argument: if they have heard about Ubuntu that way, they probably don't need to read the same info again. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that argument makes sense. Article content should not be determined based on what readers "need" to read. Rather, the article should detail notable things about the topic. Twinxor t 13:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We have a substantial disagreement on that point. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

They might want to 'learn' why Ubuntu was once called the 'porn distro'. It's a historical fact about Ubuntu. --Randolph 21:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The original consensus has already been followed (by me, nobody else seems to be putting any work into this article... or even following the revision history!) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral?

I have never heard of Ubuntu before until today, when I encountered reference to it on Slashdot. A quick visit to this article to bone up on the topic makes me think I haven't come to the right place: I pretty quickly began to question the tone of the article. This really strikes me as borderline advertisement written by a fan, and not an even handed description of this linux flavor. The frequent "quick and easy" comments smack of credulity and bias, and the only negative comment in the whole article is to note an unintiontional problem that has since been fixed; ie, not a negative at all. Dxco 18:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you cite specific parts of the article you feel are not neutral? Other than possibly the bullet points regarding Ubuntu's goals of usability and accessibility (and regardless of whether a particular user feels those goals are met, it is a verifiable fact that those are stated goals of the Ubuntu project), I don't see these "frequent 'quick and easy' comments" you're complaining about. Ubernostrum 11:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that there has been lots of editing since the post of that message. So the situation is somewhast better today. (See ) --Easyas12c 14:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The feeling I quickly got while reading this article, and that stayed with me and grew while reading it, is along the lines of "I don't trust this article. It sounds like a passionate fan wrote it, and not a neutral party evenly describing what Ubuntu is." The general tone of the article struck me as somewhat breathless and upbeat, in a manner found on sales brochures. As well, I, as random average Joe reader who does not know much at all about Linux distributions, feel that I have walked away from the article without really understanding what Ubuntu is. The article leaves me feeling that my attention has been focused on the product, plans for it, and the direction it hopes to go, without leaving me with a sense of context, why it was created, and how it relates to things more generally, and what it actually *is* (in the "What was the Magna Carta?" sense). The detail of the article is of course not a bad thing - I certainly don't take point with that. But in the same way that a radio isn't usefully described by detailing each circuit, dial, and crystal that goes into it; so too does a detailed list of features and plans for a linux distribution in and of itself not describe what it is.Dxco 03:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If you use Linux and haven't heard about Ubuntu you must be living under a rock. :) The reason why there is no criticism and alot of praise in the article is because many have praised the distro, but AFAIK noone (where noone is someone who is not a nobody) have criticised it. Eric B. and Rakim 22:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

As I mention above, I don't really know much at all about Linux, and certainly don't use it. My comments above are related to the overall tone of the article from the standpoint of Joe-average reader. I applaud it's thoroughness and detail, but worry at how I recieved it, so to speak, when reading it. Dxco 03:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ubuntu has been critisied by people including Ian Murdock (founder of Debian). -- Joey Hess

External Links

Should links to OSDir.com and DistroWatch.com be considered official resources? I would have thought only the actual Ubuntu sites would be official and everything else unofficial. SilverFox 00:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

No, and they're not listed as official resources anymore neither.--Chealer 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Gnubuntu

I think Gflores acted a bit hastily in removing the redlink to Gnubuntu -- it is not "unless an article will be written about it soon", it's "unless an article could be written about it." However, since it is extremely new and there is no guarantee that it will become notable in any way that requires its own article, I have made Gnubuntu as a redirect to this article (Ubuntu Linux) and marked it as a "redirect with possibilities" -- one that might eventually merit its own article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm unclear about the correct procedures regarding redlinks, I just remember red links being removed in my edits several times. I've also heard it should be avoided, so I don't know. Do you know where it's listed? It's not in the Manual of Style. Feel free to add the link back in. Gflores 20:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that the article seemed overlinked; that's not described in the main Manual of Style page WP:MOS, but it's in one of the supplementary manuals, at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links). It's hard to say what the exact cause was -- it could be that someone thought the links weren't relevant to the article subject, maybe they thought there were too many redlinks overall, or maybe they themselves weren't as clear as they thought they were on the subject of redlinks.

In general I think the usefulness of the redlink is best evaluated by imagining that the article the redlink points to is already written. In this case, since it's been announced by Shuttleworth and supported by Stallman, I think the potential for notability is clearly there; on the other hand, since the announcement was at most a month ago, I think it would be premature to announce that Gnubuntu is notable apart from Ubuntu. Creating a redirect seemed a good compromise. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The article refers to Gnubuntu as "an ideologically free Ubuntu derivative". Presumably, what is meant is "free (in the ideological sense)" as opposed to "free (in the financial sense)". However, "ideologically free" really means "free of ideology", making it a particularly unsuitable word when refering to the FSF, Gnu, or Richard Stallman. Admittedly, this is hard to solve; since solving it is not the point of the (Gn)ubuntu section, I suggest just using "free" with the link to Free_Software being explanation enough. -- Marcel van der Goot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.178.136.33 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like a good idea, if it is wrong in someway, someone can still fix it. --Easyas12c 16:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

References

There are a couple of sentences which are not backed up and seem to be anecdotal in nature. They are:

This applies not only to Ubuntu but to alternative/free operating systems in general, which big proprietary businesses are not always interested in, because of the potentially marginal profit gain. The installation procedure of such software is approximately equally hard to the one in Microsoft Windows, but may still render helpless an average user who is unfamiliar with his new Ubuntu system.

Do we have any links/refs for either of the statements (that big business doesn't like linux due to marginal profits and that windows installation of software is equally as hard)? I know that these are both reflective of the truth but would like to see some sort of article referenced.-localzuk 16:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have now added a selection of references to the article for a lot of the points. However, I still cannot find one to show that installing Windows software is as difficult as Linux (I can find a comment on a blog stating it but nothing definitive/verfiable). -localzuk 11:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be gone now. Is this discussion closed?--Chealer 22:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ubuntu Server in release table

The table of release versions lists all the versions (warty, hoary, breezy etc...) but also lists ubuntu-server? Why does it do this? It does not list all the kubuntu or edubuntu releases and will likely not list xubuntu releases? Should we restrict the table to main 'ubuntu' releases and possible also include a seperate list of kubuntu/edubuntu/xubuntu/server-ubuntu releases (unless these should restricted to their own pages).-localzuk 16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. The Ubuntu server doesn't belong there. A separate list is needed. Gflores 18:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have hidden the row in a html comment at the moment. If a anyone wants it re-instating do so and say why here? If not then I will delete it tomorrow.-localzuk 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Patents, closed protocols, and proprietary software

My original writing was changed to...

Patents, closed protocols, and proprietary software with restrictive licenses causes technologies to not work "out of the box". It's difficult to provide installation for these as they require royalty payments.

...which totally misses an important point. I wont revert because the new form is much better english. The latter sentence is the problem. It is not a money thing, but a restriction thing in general. E.g. SUN Java is zero prize, but doesn't permit one to redistribute it. Royalty payments by copy is one of such issues, but the sentence is now one sided. I'm asking someone with better english skills to correct it. --Easyas12c 21:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How about something like:

Patents, closed protocols, and proprietary software with restrictive licenses causes technologies to not work "out of the box". It's difficult to provide installation for these as generally they provide difficulties in distributions such as accreditation, are closed source or require royalty payments.-localzuk 22:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. Something like...

Patents, closed protocols, and proprietary software with restrictive licenses causes technologies to not work "out of the box". Including such software might cause multiple problems like; add restrictions to the distribution, make management unpractical, require royalty payments. It can also be simply prohibited by a copyright/patent holder with or without a specific reason. --Easyas12c 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll put it in. -localzuk 09:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done my best to clean this up and explain it properly, and moved it into a new section on the availability of proprietary software on Ubuntu. Ubernostrum 16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've edited a bit from the last post. I don't think that the article on Ubuntu should have descriptions of cost and accessbility of non-free software that is not distributed from or with Ubuntu. It seemed a bit off-topic and shorter section was more relevant. mako 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving this to Ubuntu (Linux distribution)

The official name of Ubuntu is not Ubuntu Linux but rather simply Ubuntu. As Ubuntu is already taken, I think we should move it Ubuntu (Linux distribution). Thoughts? Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree though I think it's bordering on pedantry :-). Additionally, it seems to depend where you look: after all, not only is there ubuntu.com, there is also ubuntulinux.org. Also, if you go to http://www.ubuntu.com/download/, the first sentence reads "Ubuntu Linux is easy to download". You can dig around Google with site:ubuntu.com "Ubuntu Linux" queries for further examples. It's sufficiently inconclusive that I personally wouldn't bother moving it. StephenHildrey 00:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Stephen's right that there's no clear distinction one way or the other; the official site responds from both domain names, and uses 'Ubuntu' and 'Ubuntu Linux' interchangeably. Plus, I'd think people who search Misplaced Pages for information on Ubuntu are more likely to try "Ubuntu Linux" than "Ubuntu Linux Distribution".

It's a good idea to have a redirect in the form "X (type or context)", however; it makes piping links much simpler and more intuitive. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved - most people will look for Ubuntu Linux or just plain Ubuntu. Putting what it is (distribution) in the title isn't really needed. We could have a redirect from Ubuntu (linux distribution) to here though. -localzuk 09:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I was there for the initial discussion of whether it should be "Ubuntu GNU/Linux", "Ubuntu Linux", or just "Ubuntu". We debated the merits of "Ubuntu GNU/Linux" and "Ubuntu Linux" before deciding that neither was worth the argument it would cause (both forms of naming having their staunch defenders and attackers) and opted to avoid the issue entirely by calling it just "Ubuntu". However, this started to drift a bit when we couldn't get the ubuntu.org domain but could get ubuntulinux.org; since then, "Ubuntu Linux" has been used in various places on our web site, although the official name is still just "Ubuntu". I agree with Stephen though that it's not a big deal. -- Colin Watson 20:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the official name is "Ubuntu" and the name "Ubuntu Linux" is not used on the official web pages, this page should be moved. Come on, this should be obvious. ----

The page has now been moved, as the official name is Ubuntu. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 01:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I object because:

1. Try googling for "ubuntu linux". You get several official sites with it in their headline. Gets 6ish million hits vs 24ish mil without the quotes

The official sites are being fixed (I am probably going to be the one doing it) Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 19:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Ubuntu Linux just sounds better. I think avoiding the perentheses and making the page title easy to remember would be a good thing.

Well, that's my opinion. It's never too late to move it back. --Snargle 06:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The official name is where it should be, not what we want to call it. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 19:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ubuntu Linux" is what they call it too. See the title of http://www.ubuntu.com. 2 of those books have "ubuntu linux" in their titles too. Sorry for getting in the way and all, but I just don't see how it was inaccurate. Snargle 20:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a bug that is being fixed RSN. In the beginning, Ubuntu was called Ubuntu Linux. Shortly afterwards it was decided to drop the Linux part of the name and just stay with Ubuntu. However, that has taken a while to get around, as you have pointed out with the website. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 07:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should be named Ubuntu (operating system). The name is plain Ubuntu. Term Linux is used in slogan Linux for human beings, only because of the marketting value the name has among average people (the people who refuse to understand that it is just an operating system kernel). One day Ubuntu may have a different kernel. Maybe HURD or one yet unheard of. Probably the worst thing we can do is enhance calling every single piece of free software Linux. Running OpenOffice on Windows is Linux too. It just has a Windows system as its kernel.--Easyas12c 13:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

An idea, but I wonder what others think. I also want to avoid churn. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 19:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

People are free to name their distros whatever they want. And they aren't idiots. I know you're aware that the term has more than one meaning. Snargle 20:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I know the history. People started using Linux as an abbreviation for Linux system and this has ever since made discussion of both a lot harder. I have also noticed that there are people who want to add to the problem by using the confusing abbreviation as much as possible, instead of avoiding it. --Easyas12c 21:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

gnubuntu stansa

I have re-added the removed stansa about gnubuntu. To state that this site can't contain information about the future releases of anything is ridiculous. There are future release movies discussed on the site, also cd's. It is a fact that there was discussion about Gnubuntu, removing it is counter-productive IMO. -Localzuk (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It just looks unprofessional, with that quote. I'll paraphrase it. Euphrosyne 22:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Someone a while back removed the category tags for Category:Linux distributions and Category:Debian-based distributions, claiming that they were "redundant supercats". This would be true except for one thing: Ubuntu Linux is the defining article for the category Category:Ubuntu. As such, it should have all the same category tags that Category:Ubuntu has. I'm restoring them now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Goobuntu removed as vandalism?

I think someone is being a little over zealous in removing the reference to Goobuntu. Google is seriously considering a Googlised version of Ubuntu so I'm a little mystified as to why the anonymous edit would be considered vandalism. --Randolph 07:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the section in question that was removed,

• Google has confirmed that they are working internally with an Ubuntu variant they call "Goobuntu", but state that it is for internal use only.

--Randolph 07:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There was more than one reason to revert it. One reason is that User:216.19.46.132 is a vandal. --Snargle 20:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus, Google and Mark Shuttleworth both have denied the existance of Goobuntu, so there is no reason to assume it does exist. --Vincent 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Have they? Where? At linux.conf.au in January I was personally told by both Jeff Waugh (Ubuntu release manager) and Marc Merlin (Senior Linux Server Admin at Google) that Goobuntu exists and is in extensive use within the company. Jeff stated that Canonical had been retained by Google to develop it. --JonOxer 12:20, 29 June 2006 (EST)

Too bad that counts as original research. A print ref would be needed to back that up. pschemp | talk 02:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jon, I know the "no original research" requirement can be frustrating and sometimes seems contrary to what Misplaced Pages tries to be, and especially what it used to be in the early days. However, to be a reliable resource without constant screen presence of all contributors, references from reputable sources must now be supplied. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could use your contacts to get either Ubuntu or Google to make a press release? The problem was this: - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

TRIVIA

• Ubuntu had a particular package called ubuntu-calendar which downloaded a new desktop wallpaper every month, but these wallpapers featured nude people and were criticized as overly risqué. This led to Ubuntu receiving nicknames such as "Linuxxx" and "The Porn Distro". It was not installed by default, and has been discontinued as of April 2005.

This does not belong into features, but rather in trivia, and can promote negativity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slicky (talk • contribs)

I have restored it into its prior form. Ubuntu promotes itself as a 'Human Distribution' and as such created a calendar series with humans in. This is a distinct feature as no other OS has done this. Also, please note that promoting something negatively is not POV. The article hopes to provide a NPOV view of Ubuntu Linux and putting this information in, with references, does not change that. -Localzuk 12:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there is a calendar feature with humans is a feature. The fact that there were nude people in it that were pulled from default releases before the system even shipped and that generated some goofy nicknames is pure trivia. I think this should be split up or moved entirely. —mako 21:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Content to be merged

Per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dapper Drake, any useful content here should be merged to this article. — Mar. 3, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

LSongs and LPhoto

"If this deal goes through, it would allow Ubuntu users a way of buying Linspire's LSongs and LPhoto programs."

Lsongs and Lphoto are licenced under the GPL and binaries for them are included in the Debian pool. Why would anyone need CNR to buy these GPLed pieces of software? Chiok 21:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite that, I imagine Linspire would be happy to sell them. Twinxor t 02:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Gnubuntu -> Ubuntu-libre_Ubuntu-libre-2006-03-13T09:20:00.000Z">

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Ubuntu-libre

--Easyas12c 09:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)_Ubuntu-libre"> _Ubuntu-libre">

What's the point of this link?--Chealer 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Version 6.06

The version is now 6.06 for Dapper as it is being released in June 2006. Please read the section on the naming scheme to clarify this. -Localzuk 18:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot removal

I have just removed the extra screenshot of Synaptic package manager. I have done this due to it being redundant - as it does not show anything new about the Ubuntu desktop. The article is not about the Synaptic package manager and as such images are not needed. -Localzuk 10:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Referencing style

We need to choose a common referencing style for this page. If no-one minds, I will edit the article and change all the references to the same type so as to keep the list tidy. -Localzuk 10:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as it is WP:FN I'm happy. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

CNR for Ubuntu (merge to CNR or Linspire)

CNR would quite clearly not replace current Ubuntu installation system, so the question is really, if another piece of software should be made available to Ubuntu. There are already other alternative installation systems on Ubuntu (most of them are of click'n'run type). On the other hand this could work as a test, if Ubuntu can make it in the center of a healthy free software business. However the CNR section is far too long for just that. Such explanation should rather be a list of free software businesses which have been able to merge their business model with Ubuntu.

Anyway the resolution will probably affect more Linspire users who are "hooked" into using CNR. Either for obtaining some necessary commercial software piece or just because they are familiar with the UI. This might lead in long terms to Linspire dropping their own operating system or making it an Ubuntu derivative. Then Linspire would not have to work on their operating system, while they would still remain in the market with their easy-to-use (I've been told) software store.

For these reasons I suggest that CNR stuff will either be merged to Linspire#CNR or a separate CNR (software store)-article will be created. --Easyas12c 10:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree - I think it is an interesting and somewhat controversial proposal which would have no visibility from an Ubuntu perspective if it isn't in this article. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How is it controversial? What is the Ubuntu perspective? Should the Ubuntu article contain one section for each installation system running on it (e.g. Klik and Zero Install), or one for every online store selling Ubuntu packages? --Easyas12c 13:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• I think it makes sense to explain CNR fully in a seperate article, but it's worth a mention here because it was an important rumor about Ubuntu. Twinxor t 17:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Edgy Eft

I don't recall estimated release date as part of the email Mark Shuttleworth sent. Just out of curiousity, where's October from? --ZachPruckowski 18:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't on that email (though I suppose there could be another source). But what I find odd about the october suggestion is that it is only 4 months after the release of Dapper, while the new releases normally come out every six months. Now Dapper isn't after six months, but after eight. I find it unlikely that they are going to release a new version in just half the time it took them to make the one before unless they want to seriously sacrifice quality. Raoul Harris 13:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is more likely a roll-over from the prior release style (.04 and .10). The official release schedule on the Ubuntu site does not have any mention of it as yet. I would suggest removing it and leaving it blank as any such dates are currently speculation. -Localzuk 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

See http://wiki.ubuntu.com/EdgyEft Jonas Jørgensen 18:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough then. But I think that's a mistake on their part; I don't think its long enough. Why not just make Edgy Eft 6.12 instead of 6.10 to make sure they get time to brush up on the quality? But then I'm actually writing this from Ubuntu - they seem to have done things right in the past to me and hopefully will be doing the right thing this time. Raoul Harris 18:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Because they want to follow the Gnome 6 month release schedule again, so Ubuntu will always ship with the latest Gnome around one month after its release. Jonas Jørgensen 18:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense too. I just think quality is more important than exactly following the gnome release cycle. Dapper's 2 months later (about 3 months after the release of gnome), Why can't all the future versions be this much later? Or do Eft and Eft+1 both taking five months which would bring it back into line? I'll stop questioning though. If they think that 4 months is enough to make a high enough quality release then I'm sure it is. Raoul Harris 19:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No, please keep questioning, I love answering Ubuntu questions :-) I believe part of the reason they aren't going to do Edgy and Edgy+1 as two five-month cycles is that the Gnome-synchronized six month release cycle with a release every April and October was one of the original big selling points that helped make Ubuntu popular, and they want to prove that they are able to stick to that promise. Also, Edgy is planned to be a, well, edgy release, in that it's the beginning of a new two-year-ish cycle which is eventually going to end up in another Dapper-style long term supported release. So that means that this is the time to introduce a lot of new cool tech and, well, break things. Since they have a reasonably recent and guaranteed stable OS in Dapper, they are going to be a little looser in terms of what risks they are willing to take with Edgy, since they can just tell someone looking for an ultra totally stable OS to consider installing Dapper even after Edgy has shipped. Therefore the 4½ month cycle seems more acceptable than it would have been for previous releases. (As far as I know! -- all of this is just stuff I've read on mailing lists and wiki pages.) Jonas Jørgensen 22:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination explanation

As someone who doesn't dabble in Linux every day, the following questions/statements came to mind. Note that most of them involve taking the article a step down in technicality... because it should be understandable to the average encyclopedia reader, which is, in this case, me. :-)

1. What is Linux and its goal?
2. Why the comparison to Debian in the introductory paragraph? It seems as though this deserves its own section, and doesn't help me properly understand the definition of Ubuntu.
3. What is GNOME?
4. I'm guessing that the goal of Ubuntu is... to make Ubuntu accessible to all? I couldn't really tell what purpose Ubuntu served.

Feel free to reply or contest. —Rob (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I'll concede that the article might offer a bigger picture of Ubuntu, rather than focusing so much on certain specifics. But I'm not sure the article ought to explain all kinds of things, just because an average reader is probably unfamiliar with them. For example, your first and third questions are best answered at the Linux distribution and GNOME articles, and I think this article should simply link them with a little context, as it does. (Linux distribution is not IMO a very good article, but it gets the point across, and to explain the concept here seems outside the article's scope.) Twinxor t 04:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Twinxor. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading the article and my points, I've gone ahead and reversed my vote. Thanks for the explanations! —Rob (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What are the licensing requirements?

The following passage:

The universe component contains a wide range of software, which may or may not have an unrestricted license, but which is unsupported by the Ubuntu team. This allows users to install all sorts of programs within the Ubuntu package management system, but keeps it separate from the supported packages in main and restricted.

Finally, there is the multiverse component, which contains unsupported packages that do not conform to the Free Software requirements.

leaves it unclear what the difference is between Universe and Multiverse. It seems that Ubuntu has a more stringent definition than the FSF , but what is it?

I assume the FSF's definition is being referred to, given the capitalisation.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's confusing, but as I understand it "universe" contains software which is open-source but not necessarily up to the standards of the "main" component, which seems to require a GPL or GPL-compatible license. Meanwhile, "multiverse" seems to contain software which is not necessarily open source in any way, and includes a disclaimer that it is an end user's responsibility to verify he or she has the appropriate rights to use "multiverse" software. Ubernostrum 19:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is quite simple...

	free software	non-free software
supported	Main	Restricted
unsupported	Universe	Multiverse

Free software being supported (Main) or not (Universe) has nothing to do with licensing. The supported free software forms a set of software which enables user to do common things. Universe contains alternative tools for the same tasks and software for more rare uses. Non-free software is usually unsupported (Multiverse), but some exceptions (Restricted) are made for very important non-free software. e.g. non-free device drivers lack of which might prevent a user from running Ubuntu on his/her system. --Easyas12c 23:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not always the license that differentiates between multiverse and universe though.. some free software (like some gstreamer plugins) are in multiverse, since they are suspected to infringe on software patents. User:Sverdrup 10:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not true that Ubuntu only includes GPL-compatible software in main and universe. There's lots of non-GPL-compatible software in main and universe (Apache, PHP, Python just to mention a few).I'm pretty sure that Ubuntu uses the same definition of "Free" as Debian, ie the Debian Free Software Guideline. I haven't found any explicit statements about whether Ubuntu actually uses the DFSG, but This wiki page suggests that that's the case. 81.229.54.25 10:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

Should there really be reviews in this article? When was the las time you read an encyclopedia with reviews in it?

In response to this comment, and in line with my own assessment, I have removed the following section entirely. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Although relatively new, Ubuntu has become a topic of much discussion in the Free/Open Source community. Greg Taylor at ReviewLinux.com gave it a rating of 10/10, writing:

Tom Adelstein in Linux Journal concluded:

While the article need not focus on reviews too much, having an idea of the critical reaction is useful, because it helps to provide context. Twinxor t 18:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Reviews come in all kinds. No one should object to objective review of facts, but personal opinions unsupported by facts and attempts to aggrandize the reviewer must be avoided. Misplaced Pages should not be used to generate hits for professional writers some of whom deliberately produce volumes of fluff to draw hits/flames/discussions rather than adding to or summarizing human knowledge.64.42.204.112 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And what exactly are you referring to, if any? Or merely espousing the very phenomenon you purport to expose? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Default desktop background

http://lunapark6.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/gnome.jpg from http://lunapark6.com/?p=1235

Some people on irc (freenode #ubuntu) claim that the above has the correct desktop background. I suspect a different one is used on hdd install vs. live cd? Can anyone clarify? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer is that the Lagoon one on the article page is the default, but other are also included, such as the one in the linked page. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

LTS support from Canonical

To expand on my edit summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ubuntu_%28Linux_distribution%29&diff=57050959&oldid=57050713

1. Presumably technical support from Canonical comes at a cost - is this their business model?
2. Other companies may decide to give longer support.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct - Canonical offers paid support. But it's also worth noting that for most users, "support" mostly refers to the updated repositories, which will be maintained for 5 years for Dapper. Twinxor t 20:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

distrowatch ranking

I moved the following about Ubuntu's distrowatch ranking since it's possibly misleading:

has been marked as the most popular Linux distribution at Distrowatch for more than one year , and

As someone who's not a native English speaker, I believe this can be interpreted as meaning that Ubuntu is considered the most popular by distrowatch. If someone believes that distrowatch's ranking, despite being known to be biased with live CDs and newbie-friendly distros, is worth being mentioned, I'd like someone to confirm that the sentence shouldn't be interpreted as meaning that distrowatch considers Ubuntu as the most popular Linux distro.--Chealer 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New image

It is not very good as it is a JPG. Can somebody make a PNG version of the same idea? The idea is good though. I never liked my contribution much. (the Breezy Image) bruce89 14:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My Ubuntu machine is out of reach. Anybody else to do this? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation

Please see Category talk:Ubuntu. Just because the rest of the wiki-universe adheres to bad practice and categorises their articles in several categories that are subcategories of each other, we need not follow their example. If you disagree, please voice your concerns here. Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

We should not be including the article in the parent category of a category it is already in. This is bad practice. Please leave it as it is. Also, the image is too large at 300 or more pixels, please leave as is.-Localzuk 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

By this I mean that Ubuntu is part of Category:Ubuntu which is in Category:Debian-based_distributions etc... so it doesn't need to be in there on the article itself.-Localzuk 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying all along. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it appears I ended up reverting you somehow. I was reverting Tobias Conradi's edit... :) -Localzuk 14:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

i will revert. since people must be able to come with one click to the dist cat to than click to the next dist. i use cats a lot, have the old skin. you hinder my browsing. further: looking in the pages section of the dist cat will leave people without seeing that there is an ubunut article and the ubuntu is a linux dist. ubuntu as subcat does not bring this. Ubuntu as a dist is at the same level as the other dists. that it has it s own cat should not move it away from the other. samsara, as per your edit summary: this is not a complete end of hierarchical categorizatiion. --Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand it now but I do not agree with it. I think the issue is more far ranging than this individual article though. What is the point of having subcategories that just list part of a parent category? It is just a subset of the set and serves no purpose. Instead I think the way it should be done is to not include the list of Linux Distributions at category:linux distributions but only the ones that aren't in a subcat. This would make the lists more managable as well as the pages themselves.-Localzuk 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the way it should be done actually. pschemp | talk 04:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Tobias, how about instead of destroying the hierarchical organisation of categories, you made some navigational templates? In fact, if you'd paid enough attention, you would have realised that one of these is already neatly placed at the bottom of this article and even points to another page listing all the Linux distributions you could shake a wet stick at. I don't see how we hinder your browsing at all. And well done for your subversive editing. For your info, cats should be in alphabetical order, as you would know if you'd actually read the guidelines rather than just shaking them in other people's faces when convenient to your argument. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

subversive? I wanted to help you because it seemed you suffered from some disabalities. Now it seems you did it on purpose. Regarding hindering mmy surfing: you do it by deleting ubuntu from the dist cat. No top right hand link to the dist cat, after you edit. And last but not least, i did not destroy hierarchy, this is blatant nonsense. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Tobias, please attempt to be civil in your comments. You have already been warned about this. pschemp | talk 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We should not be including the article in the parent category of a category it is already in. This is bad practice. Except that there is an exception for articles which are "defining articles" for a sub-category, as Ubuntu is the defining article for Category:Ubuntu. Why is it that people so frequently practice the rule of "it shouldn't be in the parent category if it's in a sub-category" and so seldom pay any attention to the very clearly spelled out exception? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy

Remember to keep things in perspective. No one wants a flamewar over a categorization disagreement. Twinxor t 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course they don't. Nor has one erupted yet. I think the categories are correct now and will be left that way. pschemp | talk 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

I added a footnote to clarify support for SPARC. This contrasts with the {{cite}} refrences used throughout the article, but it seemed like a good idea to keep such pedantry outside of the main article text. Does this look alright to everyone? If the clashing of different reference styles isn't so bad, I suggest we add more footnotes to explain minor details without cluttering up the main text too much, as this featured article does. Twinxor t 07:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My impression is that the information is outdated. See recent LugRadio interview w/ Mark Shuttleworth and someone from Sun. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Look here: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2006-June/000087.html - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

1. "Ubuntu - A New Approach to Desktop Linux". Retrieved 2006-05-09.
2. "Linux in Government: Linux Desktop Reviews, Part 6 - Ubuntu". Retrieved 2006-05-09.
3. "DistroWatch: Linux Distribution Popularity". Retrieved 2006-04-27.

• Peer review requests not specifying archive
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter