Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Copyvio?

This looks like they stole most of it from the main website for Ubuntu. I don't believe that's a real problem, but someone may want to delve in and clean it up to prevent possible issues later.

It seems that the "Components" section was directly imported from [1] in the first version: [2]. I can't find any such correspondance in the other parts of the article. — Matt 16:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "Ubuntu's relationship with Debian" paragraph is also a copyvio: it is the last section of their "Debian and Ubuntu" page. I guess I'll remove that section too; question is, does this now merit complete deletion and starting again, without the copyvios in the history (not that I can imagine Canonical suing us, but just as a matter of policy and principle)? - IMSoP 17:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps. I don't really understand the legal issues, but we should salvage the lead section. There also remains the possibility that the original contributor of the website material — a User:Jaduncan — was the legitimate copyright holder. I think we should drop him a note, either way. — Matt 18:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I changed my mind; I've rewritten the entire article instead, and ended up expanding it in the process. Oops. ;D (Oh, and as for them being the owner, it's possible but doubtful: the copyright is claimed by Canonical Ltd, not by any individual. Moot point, now, we have a from-scratch version.) - IMSoP 18:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heading or sentence

Somebody has decided that we don't need a header above the "Distinguishing features" list. I haven't time to check the manual of style or anything, but these are my thoughts on why it's nicer to have a header there:

• It separates the intro, which should mention all key facts, from the first of three detailed bits of information (features, structure, releases). This is the most important argument: that bulletted list does not belong in the intro, it belongs as part of the substance of the article. Headings distinguish the one from the other.
  • If there were no headings at all, I'd agree that there's no need, but if the article in general is big enough to need headings, we need one there.
• With a bulletted list underneath, that intro sentence becomes a paragraph with only five words, and just looks lost.
• If the article gets a couple more headers, a table of contents will appear. Without a header after the intro, it will appear right underneath that bulletted list, so you'll have to scroll down the page before you get to it.

Thoughts? - IMSoP 16:34, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's probably better with a header there. — Matt 17:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hoary hasn't been released yet!

Or has it? Why has the release date for Hoary Hedgehog been changed on this page? I don't see any indication on the Ubuntu site that it will be released before April 2005. --Claudine 05:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It has been released a while ago in their ftp servers. Wanna try ? :)

http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/hoary/array-3.5-live/hoary-live-i386.iso (i386)

http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/hoary/array-3.5-live/hoary-live-amd64.iso (amd)

http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/hoary/array-3.5-live/hoary-live-powerpc.iso (powerpc)

P.S : Please send feedback to the development team if you face any problems.

Cheers; --Nerval 06:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, I know that Hoary ISOs are available, so what do these statements from http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/releases/ mean?

Ubuntu releases work on a time-based release schedule. We release Ubuntu every six months.

The following are the current planned releases:

1. Ubuntu 4.10 (The Warty Warthog): October 2004

2. Ubuntu 5.04 (The Hoary Hedgehog): April 2005

3. Ubuntu 5.10 (The Grumpy Groundhog): October 2005

Maybe this is the release schedule for pressed CDs? --Claudine 02:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well actually, Ubuntu will bring an edition every six months. This is how it was planned, but if somehow there are advancements on other programs that is used on Ubuntu; they might pre-release it for experiment. Surely it will change over and over again until the official 2.10 Gnome is released. (And that will happen after the first week of March) Then it might take a week or two for Ubuntu to release a version with official 2.10 (and all others updated surely) ; then another week until pre-release users gives back feedback. Afterwards it will already be April, and Hoary will officially be released. Then Grumpy project will begin, probably on the next Gnome release (official or unofficial) the alpha version will come up, then it will go on and on. http://people.ubuntulinux.org/~mako/ubuntu-traffic/latest.html ; you can fallow a little bit of what is goin' on from here. For the latest version available you can always check ftp://cdimage.ubuntulinux.org/cdimage/releases/hoary/ .

--Nerval 04:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The array CDs are betas, and should not be confused with the final release. So far, we are up to array-5, which is also not the final release. The name for the betas comes from the collective noun for the animal the release is named after (the betas for Warty Warthog were "sounder" CDs). For more details, see the release schedule

--James 07:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Screenshot

The screenshot shown is a heavily customised desktop (different Gnome and Firefox themes, extra desktop icons, different background, etc). It would probably be as easy to customise another distribution to look like this as it is to customise Ubuntu, so it doesn't really tell the reader much about Ubuntu in particular. I think it would be better to show a screenshot that reflects on what a new user is likely to see, rather than what a user might customise the desktop to look like.

That sounds like a reasonable suggestion, or at least include a more "normal" screenshot in addition. Would it be possible for you to procure one yourself? — Matt Crypto 11:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Bruce89 21:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Debian

Seems to me the article plays it a little coy about Debian's relationship with Ubuntu- Ubuntu is completely derived from Debian, it doesn't merely share developers and a package manager like it seems to me the article leads one to conclude (not to knock it- I use and like both Ubuntu and Debian.) Maybe the heavy promotion of Ubuntu might be mentioned- heck, they'll mail you multiple copies of Ubuntu if you ask nicely. Not something I've heard other distros do. -- Maru Dubshinki 10:08 PM Thursday, 03 March 2005

I'm still not clear on the distinction here. Seems to me Ubuntu is to Debian as a yearbook is to highschool. Sure it's shiny, but you wait forever to get one and somehow all the pictures are of the popular kids. I'd rather have newspaper delivered daily then a truck arrive every six months with half a forest. Their website is unhelpful. Their unique features are rather droll, in fact. Linux that you can download or get on a CD? That's fresh. It's free? Blowing me away here. Fast, easy install? Linux hasn't been hard to install in a loooong time. Immediately useful? I hope that doesn't mean bloat. Maybe I'm just missing the point ... but does anyone else get the feeling it's going to be dead within one or two of their "regular updates" (6 months is a long time ...). Or maybe it will take over the world -- stranger things have happened. I would like to see a criticism sector in this article. Just for completeness. (Even Paul Graham has a criticism section). --69.158.48.123 05:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, pull up a bunch of criticisms, cite and weed'em, and stick them in. That's what Wikipedia is all about. But as for your points: who else sends you free cds, if you are unfortunate enough to not have a burner? Aside from Linspire and one or two other distros, who is as desktop functional as Ubuntu? Or multi-lingual (one of their main points)? etc. --Maru 20:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you were missing the point. I know this is an old discussion but the point is that they are trying to make linux more accessible by reducing the amount of guff you have to go through to find what you want. They won't just vanish as they have a good financial grounding (Ubuntu foundation started with initial $10 million - enough to last a long time in the linux world). -localzuk 20:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hum. FREE CDs? I missed that part. Hum. And multi-lingual is good. Hum. 69.158.75.42 04:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, months later,still growing , still going strong, huge community, guess you guys are a little red in the face? I gotta say, its made me stick with linux for longer than I ever have before. Yoink23 19:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Grumpy Groundhog

I've heard from a few people on UbuntuForums that Grumpy Groundhog isn't really a name of a future Ubuntu release, but rather the name for where Ubuntu stocks their unstable packages for testing (a la the Sid repos in Debian). However, I'm not sure I should add this infomation just yet. Can anybody confirm that this is true? -- NeoChaosX 23:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's true. [3]

Not quite the same as Sid/Rawhide/whatever. The idea is to hold packages of unreleased software (i.e. what's in CVS or equivalent), rather than packages of the latest released versions of the software. --James 08:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

grumpy groundhog is a debian sid style unstable branch rather than a future release name. see http://udu.wiki.ubuntu.com/GrumpyGroundhog

i cant seem to edit this page at the mo, locked or something

Hoary screenshots

Anyone got some good Hoary screenshots to put up?

I just put up a basic one, showing Firefox running. -kinghajj

We should rather use screenshots of standard desktop with default settings - that, what users get after install without need of changing it. See Screenshots of Ubuntu at OSDir.com --Ptomes 28 June 2005 14:18 (UTC)

I have added a screenshot using default logins, and some of the default packages installed with Ubuntu 5.04 "hoary" release. (namely firefox 1.0.7, OpenOffice.org 1.1.3, and using Gnome 2.10. this is my first edit, so my apologies for any mistakes. Uzusan 22:08, 24th October 2005 (GMT)

Translation problem

I am translating this article to Chinese wikipedia. Somebody has different understanding with me about this sentence, "Beyond just using the same deb package format, Ubuntu has very strong links with the Debian community, contributing any changes directly and immediately, rather than announcing them only at release time." Who contributs any changes directly and immediately? I think it is Ubuntu. But he insists it should be Debian.--202.113.12.191 28 June 2005 12:26 (UTC)

It is Ubuntu. If Ubuntu makes changes to sources that come from Debian - most of them - they are contributed to the Debian project.

Graphs

The article could use graphs similar to Image:Debian-package-cycle.png --Easyas12c 11:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Newbie question

As a newbie to Linux, Wikipedia readers like me might wonder:

1. What kinds of updates are included in the 6-month releases (i.e. describe it more)? For these upgrades, do you have to reinstall all your applications/preferences etc.?

It is a very good and important question, but I don't know if there is a good answer. Lets asume that you were writing this for a Windows newbie. (Updates are of course very different in Windows so this is just an example to show how such definition would look like) So please, anyone. Write (on this talk-page) an example text that shows how such definition would look for Windows. --Easyas12c 11:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean for "Windows users" at the end? I'm not sure, but I know that any updates to the software that exists in the the latest released version is updated etc. So perhaps:

After a Ubuntu version has been released, software including in it will no longer be updated - either on the CD release or in the official repositories of updates online. During each release's supported phase, only bug fixes will be released for this software.'

New versions of software with added features are only included in the development branch of the Ubuntu for inclusion in the next 6-month release. Besides this, additions to new releases will include any new features or software that developers have deigned suitable for inclusion in Ubuntu, as well as a new Kernel, and utilities to improve stability and general usability]].

I recognise that some of that is slightly unwieldy at times, so I'd appreciate a bit of feedback - Estel ^(talk) 14:17, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding upgrades of the distribution: Linux distributions are generally very different from Windows in this sense. Perhaps the easiest way to conceptualize it is to think of Windows Update, and imagine a system where that tracked updates and upgrades to every application which was installed on the system, not just the updates for the operating system. A good Linux distribution will typically have a huge range of applications packaged for use and easily installed from the package manager, which then tracks them for updates. Upgrading the distribution will (automatically) install not only the latest core components of the operating system, but the latest versions of all other installed applications as well (note this does not apply to anything which was installed "manually" outside the distribution's package manager). Preferences and settings are preserved unless a particular application changes the way it handles them; in this case it is considered good practice for the new version to migrate existing preferences to the new scheme automatically. Ubernostrum 05:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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 ^(talk) 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. [4] --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 ^(talk) 17:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a plan to include GCC as part of the default install of Edgy, the next release of Ubuntu, due in October 2006.

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 [5] 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 [6]) --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 ^Talk 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 Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 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". [13] 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". [13] 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". [13] 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 Wikipedia 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)