Jump to content

Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

"Advertisements"

Merriam-Webster has "the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements" (via "advertising"). That's what these things are. The word advertisement is not pejorative. The fact that people don't like advertising is not a reason to avoid accurately describing advertising as advertising. Reliable secondary sources were given. There is no grounds for replacing it with obfuscatory verbosity. This is taking a leaf out of the book of some of the partisan primary sources referred to in the article, such as Canonical. A violation of WP:NPOV.--Russell E (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

And does the dictionary list this version of Ubuntu as such? Without a reliable source it would be WP:OR. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, his suggestion is OR, but it is not OR to report what reliable secondary sources say, and if anyone had read the sources provided next to the sentence in question, you would see that these sources unequivocally report it as advertising. So while I was against the use of the term 'adware', not supported by RS, this term certainly is, and we must keep it in order to adhere to NPOV, because all this rewriting and trying to call it something else IS OR. Elizium23 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


"Adware" is a portmanteau composed from "advertising-supported software". Ubuntu is now advertising-supported software. An integral and essential part of the system now displays advertising by default. Now if anyone would care to explain (in real terms, not the gobbledygook above) where the original research or non-neutral POV is in that, I would appreciate it.

The third paragraph of the introduction is a disgrace. The way Canonical generates revenue is irrelevant there.

Also, given the controversy, we need a new section about it, the second-to-last paragraph of the "Critical Reception" section presents only one side of the coin. Richat Stallman's recent criticism should be included as well. Imnotmike (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

On "adware", see this talk page and Talk:Adware. The matter seems intractable to me. I've tried about 6 different tacks and have been blocked at every turn. I give up. WP is effectively hijacked by the opinions of its editors.
On the third paragraph, I think this is key information which belongs in the introduction. It could be sharpened if we were able to simply apply a label like "adware" or "advertising-supported software", but see my comment above. People don't want this to happen.
On rms' position, this is referred to in the last paragraph of that section, attributed to the Free Software Foundation. Or is there another venue in which he has expressed an opinion on the matter?--Russell E (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Latest Version Layout

I have been working on a Linux Users Group resource page and need some conformity of all the Wiki Linux versions and distributions. Debian has an excellent template and I have made an RSS reader to pluck version data from the wiki page. Would be nice if I could get all of them to follow this method and my page could keep up to date with all the latest versions.

RSS source path

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Debian&feed=rss&action=history

RSS Template.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Debian&action=edit

User:icarusfactor 02:52, 23 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Ubuntu is now a mobile distribution for smartphones. It should be added on this page

Hi,

Announced beginning of 2013, Canonical Ubuntu is launching its OS on the smartphones. It is a really good alternative to Android and much more powerfull because all apps from the Ubuntu normal desktop distribution are available.

I suggest to add this Ubuntu on wikipedia.

Source : http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svergeylen (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Already done. See Ubuntu for Android. If there's something else you'd like to see, feel free to do it yourself. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Unsupported" Free software (aka "Universe") should read as "Community Maintained"

Unless I"m misreading the document, "Universe" is considered "Community Maintained" packages. Thereby, bugfixes and the likes are typically applied to the package as community contributions. Case in point: the package 'nginx' is in universe, however it is maintained by the community and is still technically "supported", just not supported by the ubuntu developers.

I know this is just semantics, but as an Ubuntu guy, i tend to not like inconsistencies...
    ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Dell does not sell Ubuntu Systems

The "Small and Home Office" category of Dell no longer shows Ubuntu systems, and hasn't since at least 10.04. Unless you are aware of such other proof, in which case please provide a link or two confirming this. I've even contacted dell before, and asked if they carry Linux systems, in ANY of their departments, and the answer has been definitively "no" for at least two years. ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm partly at fault here, they do sell Ubuntu systems, however they're running a version of Ubuntu that is EOL in April. They do not provide systems, as far as I can tell, with a more recent, supported version of Ubuntu. ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Depends which April… Ubuntu 12.04 LTS is the current version of Ubuntu and is currently selling at www.dell.com/ubuntu; its EOL is April 2017. This is dwarfed by the large number of Dell-Ubuntu stores in PRC and in India. —Sladen (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Sladen: I wrote the first post at 2AM, so I forgot to mention that all I could find is that 11.10 is what Dell is shipping on their US Linux systems. Guess what: that dies in April 2013. I have yet to see Dell release anything that uses 12.04. Feel free to link me to stuff that proves otherwise, but all I see are 11.10 systems (which EOL in February). ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, the dell.com/ubuntu page is erroring out here, so I can't confirm/refute your statements. I'll check it tomorrow. ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
According to dell.com/ubuntu, Dell ships computers with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS: "The XPS™ 13 Developer Edition combines the performance and mobility of the XPS 13 with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS to create a client-to-cloud solution for developers." Jonny2BeGood (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Is that the only system they sell with 12.04LTS on it? ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
It's quite possibly the the singlular US, consumer, end-user, laptop you can buy off the website at the moment. www.ubuntu.com/certification/make/Dell/ is the list of certified Dell systems, many of which state "Please note that for pre-installed systems: The system is available in some regions with a special image of Ubuntu pre-installed by the manufacturer." If you're a corporate asking for a batch order or in a different region you can probably have what you want pre-installed, though large organisations are probably going to wipe it and ghost their own image on the system upon delivery anyway. —Sladen (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ubuntu Contains Spyware

Now that the whole Adware discussion has ended, does anyone object if I add to the article that Ubuntu contains spyware? By default, Ubuntu logs your Unity Dash keystrokes and sends these to their server. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The same criteria apply. Please provide reliable secondary sources which document the behavior and use the name, "spyware" to describe it. Elizium23 (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
It should say in the article about Ubuntu that Richard Stallman says that Ubuntu contains - in fact, he says "is"[1] - spyware. Some secondary sources: ZDNet, The Register, TechEye. Richard Stallman is the founder of the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project. Ubuntu is Free Software that primarily uses the GNU GPL. No need to state that Stallman says that Ubuntu teaching people not to value freedom (convenience rather than freedom) or what the details are (Ubuntu sending what people look for to Canonical, Amazon finding out what people search for). The article should mention that Richard Stallman says that Ubuntu contains/is "spyware". --82.170.113.123 (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
How's this: According to Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project, Ubuntu contains spyware and should not be used by Linux supporters.[1][2][3] --82.170.113.123 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I've added it. WP:BOLD, plus it's properly sourced and relevant/noteworthy. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Strongly against this idea. Anyone else here think that this section smells suspiciously like the discussion of Ubuntu as Adware again? In this article, writing that "Ubuntu contains spyware" has the same general connotation as actually classifying the operating system as Adware or Spyware or Malware, which we already had a general consensus on earlier of not being valid nor agreed upon. ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Please read the rest of the text in this Talk section, it has been rephrased thoroughly and has already been added to the article. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I've read the text in this talk section, and the content on the article that you added. I believe that my disagreement is with the use of just saying "Oh, Ubuntu contains spyware." I believe it prudent, and I may be wrong on this, that you should explain specifically what in Ubuntu is the source of the spyware, otherwise non-technical and non-informed users will say "Wait, Ubuntu is spyware?", which would then result in this article becoming a negative-stance article, regardless of WP policies and restrictions (and regardless of whether the section this is under is called "controversy" or otherwise). Therefore, I believe this requires further discussion before permanent inclusion in the article (perhaps flag the section as "Under Discussion", since it really is. And, no offense to you, Anonymous IP User, but I'd rather see some long-standing registered members commenting on this, not just you and I. ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, I discussed this with the security team, and found a response from Mark Shuttleworth on the bug about a legal notice, and I shall quote:

Here's how we are going to handle this:
* We will make a very bold, clear way for you to turn on and off network queries across ALL scopes for any given session in the dash. Think about this like the 'anonymous' mode in your browser. Toggle it, right there in the Dash, and you are totally certain you are not sending network traffic. We will aim to enforce this at the kernel level, hence the CC to Jamie S who leads our security team.
* We will have the ability to configure the Home screen, including choice of scopes, and the behaviour of individual scopes.
* Legal notices will all be in one place, in the 'About Ubuntu' part of the UX, and visible in the install experience too.

Mark

This "spyware feature" is in the development version of Ubuntu, as far as I can tell, which hasn't yet been released, but when it is, this would resolve the "spyware" issue, as you can clearly disable it.

Therefore, i believe that this inclusion you have already put in the article needs further discussion come April, and further preemptive discussion now, which you have opened courtesy of this section on this talk page. ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Geez, now I'm calling into question the definition of spyware. I just tested in 12.10, and there is a way to disable this "spyware like feature": Settings > Privacy > "Off". That would therefore not match the definition of "spyware", since its an optional feature that you are able to disable. In 13.04, they're going to make the disable ability more prominent on the Dash itself. ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Just because spyware can be disabled or is configurable doesn't mean it's not spyware. It's on by default and it happens without the user's knowledge. Only when the user reads a notice about it or happens to go through the settings will the user find out what is happening. It doesn't matter that it can be disabled or is configurable. I too welcome comments from other Wikipedia users. However, contributions from unregistered users are just as important in determining consensus as contributions from registered users, therefor I'm not too happy about your "I'd rather see some long-standing registered members commenting on this". --82.170.113.123 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, whether it really is spyware or not is irrelevant. Richard Stallman claims it is spyware, that's what the article says, and his opinion is relevant and noteworthy. What in Ubuntu is considered to be problematic is already explained in the Ubuntu (operating system)#Controversy section, the section the line about Stallman is in. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Vaughan-Nichols, Steven (December 9, 2012). "Free software father declared Ubuntu Linux to contain spyware". ZDNet. Retrieved February 19, 2013. Richard M. Stallman, aka RMS, creator of the Gnu General Public License (GPL) and the Free Software Foundation has announced that as far as he's concerned, Ubuntu contains spyware and that Linux supporters should shun Ubuntu for spying.
  2. ^ McAllister, Neil (December 7, 2012). "Stallman: Ubuntu spyware makes it JUST AS BAD as Windows". The Register. Retrieved February 19, 2013. Free Software Foundation founder and noted weird-beard Richard Stallman has called upon Linux advocates to reject the Ubuntu distribution, claiming the latest version contains dangerous "surveillance code."
  3. ^ Farrell, Nick (February 18, 2013). "Open source community wades into Ubuntu phone". TechEye. Retrieved February 19, 2013. Open source Pope Richard Stallman is not a big fan of Ubuntu which he has called spyware because the operating system sends data to Ubuntu maker Canonical when a user searches the desktop.

Free and open source software

Recent edits are driven by an agenda to remove the term Free and open source software from the article. I would ask why it is believed that Ubuntu is not free (libre) software? (Source: http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/our-philosophy ) Elizium23 (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The install medium contains only FOSS but the whole distribution consists of all software in the official repositories which includes Flash Player etc. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not denying that it also contains proprietary and non-free software, but Flash Player, to take your example, is neither free nor open-source. The core of Ubuntu is not closed source, nor is it non-free software. What I am asking is why the editor is removing "free" and leaving only the descriptor "open source" in its place. Elizium23 (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. Thought you were referring to the edit which added “and proprietary software” to the infobox. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

GNU-Linux rather than Linux

Aren't Ubuntu and Debian distributions of the GNU-Linux operating system? If I'm not wrong, this would a more complete and precise and fair description on the article's first lines. And would give credit to the people who worked on the GNU os. --Facu89 (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Additionally, Ubuntu has never been "Ubuntu GNU/Linux" (unlike Debian). Thanks, Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 14:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. --Facu89 (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ubuntu (operating system) → Ubuntu – Per WP:COMMONNAME I suggest moving page to Ubuntu. The name Ubuntu is mostly used for the OS, not for the philosophy Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC).

That's if you take the primary topic criterion with respect to usage as the only one. There's also the criterion with respect to long-term significance, and the two may well conflict. The idea that there should be no question about this kind of a conflict is, well, merely your wishful thinking. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The long-term significance of the philosophy would be a relevant factor to consider if we were talking about whether the philosophy is the primary topic. But we're not. That question was already settled. Consensus was that the philosophy was not the primary topic. Now we're considering whether the operating system is the primary topic. The usage statistics indicate an obvious answer about which there should be no further question. --B2C 19:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the statistics cited by B2C and per WP:BIAS. When this was discussed in 2011, the OS was out-hitting the philosophy on the order of 8 to 1, but there was no consensus to make the OS the primary topic. The ratio has now gotten worse: it's only 5 to 1. Couple that with the systemic bias toward the topic that is more likely to be discussed online, and this move doesn't seem a good idea. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:BIAS (even though I'm typing this on a Ubuntu machine!). We're building an encyclopedia of the World's knowledge, and it's the fact that it's online which is naturally slanting our users towards the computer literate as opposed to the philosophical. --GRuban (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Important decision: reliable sources

If you known how to discern reliable sources, please give your assessment on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http://desktoplinuxreviews.com_and_http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk. Ubuntu should be a featured article (I am willing to do a significant part of the required work, in the coming vacations) and for that we need much better sources. -- Jorge (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sol (Laptop)

The Banner, again stop it. Only you think that Sol_(Laptop) is a SPAM. Got a different opinion? Please comment. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please, my friend. That whole article about Sol is written by the founder of that company. Secondly, are you seriously wanting to add every single laptop that has Ubuntu pre-installed? What on earth is the encyclopaedic about that? The Banner talk 22:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with The Banner. It has not been demonstrated that this particular release of Ubuntu onto this particular hardware is so notable that it deserves a mention while others do not. Elizium23 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
For now we have only a few Ubuntu machines, besides that's an innovation for Ubuntu (solar laptop with Linux), so it's absolutely usable and interesting for many readers. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the article in present shape was written by you. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, because the original author/founder of the firm preferred to have all the promo in that article. Or did you not notice that founder and author are equal? The Banner talk 16:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Please note that if someone has something to do with article's content not becomes automaticlit a SPAMMER. This info is useful and doesn't matter ho adds it. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
(bwc) It is completely unbelievable that User:Rezonansowy keeps adding the info about WeWi and Sol. This information was added by the founder of WeWi, someone with a clear business interest to spread the word. What on earth makes you think that it is not promo, Rezonansowy? Why do you so bluntly ignore the facts? The Banner talk 00:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Rezonansowy Among others are a majority here. The Banner keeps deleting stuff about the laptop saying it's not notable and that it's spam. I seriously doubt the inventor(s) would have time to edit articles, they are a bit busy it seems making other stuff. You're pointing fingers here but it is just as likely that I'm the creator or a marketing firm as you are some Microsoft employee with a personal agenda against Linux/Ubuntu and products supporting it. I thank everyone else enthusiastic about Sol as I am that are helping keeping this on. P.S - TheBanner, there's a majority here that disagrees with you, accept it and stop deleting Sol referencesDSNR talk 03:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Mr. company founder, just cut your crap. I don't say you are the creator of a marketing firm, I just say that you are the founder and owner of WeWi and that you have a financial interest in the laptop and its promotion. The Banner talk 11:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Not spam. Hello guys. I made a cursory check: GizMag, PC Pro, Computer World and Daily Tech have reviews about Sol. So, the subject is notable and Sol can have its own article. Mentioning Sol in this article in the same line that other laptops are mentioned is acceptable. In case of WP:COI, we must eliminate the conflict, not the article.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Codename Lisa.DSNR talk 03:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Now for everybody visible after the last spammy revert at Sol (Laptop) that the founder and the author DSNR are identical. The Banner talk 11:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa:, @DSNR: He did it again. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, I can bring up a bunch of laptops that come with Ubuntu on them. What makes Sol so special? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Rsrikanth
That's none of my concerns. Someone requested a 3O from me as to whether the inclusion of Sol in Wikipedia is spam. I did a cursory check and found it in compliance with Wikipedia policies. That's all that concerns me. As for your bunch of laptops, they need to be checked against the policy individually.
That said, what User:The Banner is doing is edit warring. The proper way of addressing content disputes are through WP:DR.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Unless it can be established (Rsrikanth05 makes a good point) that it is somehow unique or noteworthy that a machine is preloaded with Ubuntu, from multiple reliable sources, the section should not be in here. We don't list all the Windows machines in the Windows articles--at least I hope we don't. And Codename Lisa, the proper way to address editorial disputes is, in the first place, the talk page. If The Banner is edit warring, so are Rezonansowy and DSNR, and the latter's COI strikes me as pretty clear. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Forgive me, I should have mentioned earlier. If I intend to bring in a list of devices with Ubuntu, I'd source them. As Drmies has already stated; what would happen if I or someone else bring in a list of 20 or more laptops preloaded with Ubuntu, and bring a source for each? You can argue using WP:EXIST, and I can use the same argument against it. Again, Drmies said that all three concerned users are edit warring, I agree. Dispute Resolution should be to reach consensus on the talk page, which is bleak here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but even if referenced, I don't see the purpose of such lists. It's clear why this was inserted in the first place: to lend credibility to the system ("look: it now comes preloaded on some computers"). But again, if something like this is notable then reliable sources ought to say so--not just that Ubuntu is on a machine, but that it's noteworthy. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Drmies. I was asked for a 3O on whether the contents are uncontroversially spam; my check returned negative. But I refuse to be involved into the discussion further. Rsrikanth05 might or might not have a point; I take no sides here. So, Rsrikanth05, you should probably target your question at other participants.
That said, I do not condone edit warring, no matter who did it. These guys must keep the so-called "wrong version" and engage in WP:DR instead of edit warring. Meanwhile the person that I insist must stop or be stopped as the first priority is the the one who has done seven disruptive edits in this article, six of them content removals with an "I didn't hear that"-class edit summary. (There is no point stopping editors who have only done one revert and by definition, already stopped.) Hence, I did what I did. Make no mistake, I do not condone any further reverts from anyone else here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
[ec with CM] Well, I don't see the "I didn't hear that" in summaries like "Revert adding spqam by company founder with severe conflict of interest", and it's certainly better than "..."--well, nothing at all. I see now that CorporateM has kindly stepped into the mix, lending even more credibility to what you call the disruptive edits, edits which in my opinion simply follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Eh? Please correct me if I am wrong, but after three editors come to talk page and say "not spam", such a revert (whose edit summary says "spam") is denial of having heard them. And CorporateM surely adds support for deletion but does not give credibility to the edit warring. (I really doubt even Jimbo Wales can bring that much credibility!) But the situation is still far from having a consensus. What I see is more reverts, this times by CorporateM. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That revert by CorpM is endorsed by The Banner, Elizium23, Rsrikanth05, judging from comments here. DSRN is edit-warring with a clear interest at stake and their opinion has no weight anymore. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, I feel that is nothing but one warrior endorsing war. 14 reverts are more than enough. These guys should have ceased all editing activities and talked with each other a long time ago. A WP:DRN or WP:RFC was in order. If I were an admin, I'd have issued a WP:0RR ultimatum, to be enforced with a full page protection. But nothing good comes out of watching this mess which I already know does not end well. So, I'm buggin' out. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Not spam, but delete: The material does not meet the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Spam to be identified as such. However, we should almost always avoid creating comprehensive lists, especially on only tangentially related topics, unless of course it is a List article. One caveat though, is that we defer to the judgement of the sources to determine relevance. So if there was a profile story on Ubuntu that mentions the systems it comes pre-installed on, we would follow suit. For example, if we had a perfect source for it, we might add something like "As of 2013, Ubuntu comes pre-installed on 152 different PC models as estimated by the super reliable analyst firm. These include the super popular model, which is the top shipper of PCs by volume in the world and 22 other models with volume of 20,000 PCs or more per year." To meet the criteria for inclusion, the source should be about Ubuntu, rather than an article that mentions Ubunu in passing. CorporateM (Talk) 18:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Jee, Codename Lisa, I wasn't targeting anyone. I was merely stating my opinion. As Drmies said, such lists should be avoided. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, people let's be reasonable here. As an Ubuntu/Linux guy I believe this should be there. If there's a Dell in there or another machine, clearly a solar system is worthy mentioning (you know, open software people like other open things haha) So you agree this isn't spam (as do I) but this isn't just a list, its a computer created with Linux in mind and not as an afterthought. That means a lot to us Linux people .LondonLinux talk 05:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that it is unfair that other vendors like Dell are mentioned under the Vendor Support section? But WeWi (the creators of Sol) is already mentioned there. CorporateM (Talk) 01:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Will this be added when available on Ubuntu?

"A new scope set to be included in Ubuntu by default will allow users of The Pirate Bay to conduct BitTorrent searches directly from Unity desktop. The tool’s creator informs TorrentFreak that while there is still work to be done, the aim of the scope – which is endorsed by Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth – is to embed Free Culture directly into the Ubuntu user experience." TF 85.246.173.183 (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly inserted in the lede section and it is unsourced, and unsupported by the article. Please read the "Installed base" section for the details on how Ubuntu has been measured the most popular Linux distribution, this does not seem to be qualified by "desktop" or "non-server" or any other qualifier. Elizium23 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think unity is a DE

Unity is a shell interface for the GNOME desktop environment so its wrong to call it a desktop environment, or state that it replaced gnome. Quercus mortus (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Is 10.04 (or any version), that is still supported, available in a CD-fittable versions?

FYI (taken care of): I just noticed "With the release of Ubuntu 12.10, the desktop disc image no longer fits on a standard (700 MB) CD" and dropped this language. This would imply to me that older fit (and maybe are available). I can't find older 12.04 (not supported), 12.04.4 I can find however (that is newer than 12.10 and not CD-fittable, I assume similiar for 10.04 but can't find any version), [4] but it also doesn't fit. Should this language be dropped (moved to historical - List of Ubuntu releases?) here? If this page is only about current version I think so. [Of course some .iso or physical disc can be found somewere that is not be supported.] comp.arch (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No, keep the language. - It was notable that the 12.10 desktop image felt that availability of DVDs/USBs meant that they could exceed the CD capacity. Snori (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Already in List of Ubuntu releases: "In September 2012 Canonical’s Kate Stewart announced that the Ubuntu 12.10".. about this issue, seems good enough for me. Trying to keep this article short, note I changed to "for current versions of Ubuntu", implying it wasn't like this in the past. comp.arch (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Addition of self-published, general ref

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_%28operating_system%29&oldid=622201544&diff=prev First it's the wrong type of cite. Second, it's a bad cite since it doesn't actually point to anything. Third, it appears to be self-published, at least the "publisher", which is linked, is not notable (no article). Fourth, it's not from a recognized expert. Fifth, it's not clear what it's referencing. All of these reasons (and probably a dozen more) imply to me that it shouldn't be there but the editor who added it is edit warring to keep it in and left this note explaining why. Comments? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Uncited section

Removed for now:

At the beginning of a new development cycle, Ubuntu developers from around the world gather to help shape and scope the next release of Ubuntu. The summit is open to the public, but it is not a conference, exhibition or other audience-oriented event. Rather, it is an opportunity for Ubuntu developers, who usually collaborate online, to work together in person on specific tasks.
From 2013 February, Ubuntu Developer Summit (UDS) is organized online through Google+ Hangouts, any number of participants and viewers can participate. Online UDS is held on two different days instead of two consecutive days. The Online UDS video is archived and is available on the website.

Samsara (FA • FP) 12:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Large Scale Deployments

My local job-centre’s got a couple of public terminals for us job-seekers: with simplified versions of HP’s build of Ubuntu.

Is it worth investigating this, and giving it a mention … ?

Cuddy2977 (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be important to find out numbers. It seems likely that your job-centres were modified nation-wide rather than just locally. Where we have numbers for deployments, they're in the thousands of workstations. The ones where we don't have numbers for are the Indian justice system, Iceland and Obama's campaign. I suspect we could find news coverage mentioning numbers for India and Iceland, though, and they're probably in the thousands again. Samsara (FA • FP) 08:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
We should not mention them in the article without references, but it is worth mentioning if they can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I’ll put that on the back burner, for now, and see what I can find.

Cuddy2977 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the development model for Ubuntu?

User:Palosirkka, without providing references, inserted the claim that Ubuntu's development model is "open source and closed source". As I am not aware of any currently unaddressed queries about the open source character of Ubuntu, and note that Canonical are very outspoken about their full support for the open source model, I suggest that unless he can provide a reference supporting this claim, the article be returned to its previous state. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to look no further than the article itself to see there is non-free software in Ubuntu... One particular example is the Linux kernel which contains several firmwares with no source code. Palosirkka (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I asked you to provide references stating that the *development model* of Ubuntu is a closed source model. I.e. that the community developing Ubuntu is actively using closed source methodology. So can you provide a reference, or is this a case of original research? Samsara (FA • FP) 17:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
How do you think those included closed source parts were developed? Palosirkka (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll offer a comparison. I have a video card on my Ubuntu 14.04 box. There are both proprietary drivers and drivers that are open source. Neither set of drivers are available through the default repositories: they have to be added to the repositories. This means that it's a bad example. However, other closed-source products are offered through the "store", but they can be selected out. Palosirkka: do you mean to imply the core code such as the kernel, common utilities and core code? It's all open source. However, not all applications are open source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Walter, user choosing to install or not install a part of ubuntu does not change the development model of the part in question. Palosirkka (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
By the same line of thinking, all versions of Windows are also open source because open source software can be installed on them. So following your logic, Palosirkka, we get reductio ad absurdum. Samsara (FA • FP) 21:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I never stated that it changed the development model. I was asking a question of Palosirkka. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Samsara, Windows doesn't have any repositories at all so the analogy is deeply flawed. There is windows update but I don't know whether they distribute open source stuff there. If they do, please feel free to edit the windows article. Palosirkka (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The first source at the recent edit doesn't support the idea that there is closed source (or proprietary source) and the second requires interpretation and is a WP:PRIMARY source that requires interpretation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter, do not revert but discuss. Try reading the reference 1 again... It clearly states that only the ubuntu "main" repository requires source code made available under a free license. Software that doesn't do that is closed source software and is put to the other ubuntu repositories. If you want a non-primary source for the claim the kernel contains closed source software, e.g. here's one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palosirkka (talk • contribs) 06:44, 17 October 2014‎
Providing something in a repository is a significantly different action compared to participating in its development. You have not provided any reliable sources stating that the Ubuntu community actively develops closed source software that is then included in Ubuntu. Samsara (FA • FP) 06:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Palosirkka: You're actually the one reverting. There are multiple editors restoring the established version and you're adding original research, primary sources and material that requires interpretation.
The issue is simple: Ubuntu has core code and that is open source. Just because I can add proprietary software to Ubuntu does not mean that it uses it as part of its model. It allows it as part of its development model.
What you need is a WP:SECONDARY source that supports your opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So apparently http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing supports that Ubtunu uses "Proprietary software in a non-default area". I don't see that there. What am I missing? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh and of course, if it is there, it shouldn't be added with a line break. A comma should separate the additional information and there should be no capital letter to start "proprietary". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
And most important, infoboxes are to be a summary of the article and not contain references, unless it can be helped. This is not discussed in the article. See WP:INFOBOXREF. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It says, we install some hardware drivers that are available only in binary format, but such packages are clearly marked in the restricted component under "software installed by default". It sounds like users do not actually get a choice regarding the installation of such drivers, although they may be able to remove them subsequently without affecting the system's ability to boot up. I see further unanswered questions, e.g. are these components only installed if you have hardware that is supported by them, or by default for all users whether they need them or not? It would be good to find further reliable sources that actually describe the situation in detail in a way that is specific to Ubuntu. Samsara 08:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Of course the user gets a choice. If there are open source versions they're installed first. The user can select their hardware to avoid propitiatory drivers.
Second, a detailed explanation needs to be made in the article, about the length that you made here, and then it can be added if there are no further objections. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

108.234.36.176 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Mr.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Good articls== A few month ago IP 108.234.36.176 Saw someone simply praising Ubuntu ==

Hace unos meses IP 108.234.36.176 Saw alguien simplemente alabando Ubuntu con fuera de cualquier citación de cualquier cosa por el estilo. ¿Esto se eliminan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.234.36.176 (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ubuntu Snappy Core [on Raspberry Pi 2]

First, concerning the Raspberry Pi article. Current Ubuntu does not run on it, because it has only ARMv6; in the new Pi 2 version that has ARMv7 it is said: "The version of Ubuntu available for the Pi is Snappy Ubuntu Core. This version targeted at developers and cloud deployments does not have a desktop interface."[5]

This is something repeated on the Pi article ("The Raspberry Pi 2 currently only supports Ubuntu Snappy Core, Raspbian, OpenELEC and RISC OS"), only this version of Ubuntu works. Note the "Snappy Core" link as this article doesn't mention it. I do not want to contradict that article with WP:OR, but it seems a full version of Ubuntu should work (at least eventually).

I'm not sure what could be the problem to run full Ubuntu, maybe drivers, but original Pi (1) already supports desktop use, non-Ubuntu, Raspbian distro based on (modified) Debian. The GPU hardware is identical. Ubuntu supports ARMv7 (and fully the specific core variant in Pi 2).

Is it too soon to mention Snappy Core somehow in this article (is it used in production/current released version of Ubuntu)? If the Raspberry Pi article is mistaken (and fixed soon) I'm not sure there is any hurry.. comp.arch (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

So. Where is the "open source"? Why is there so much verbiage about the types of distribution packages? Who cares? Is that a key feature? What is it that is distributed? A binary executable or a package of scripts and some engine? After reading the lede, I'm left not knowing much about it. Its NOT a minor issue, imho, that Amazon has apparently co-opted some of the GUI desktop. All of this should be mentioned in the lede. This article basically fails as a good encylopedia article: What machines does it run on?? Why does it exist? Linux is an OS. Debian is an OS. Ubuntu is an OS. So, who in their right mind thinks describing Ubuntu as a "Debian based Linux OS" is meaningful to the average reader? Is it important enough to be in the lede? Does Ubuntu conform to Debian specs? Linux's? Why is so much space wasted in the lede describing the etymology of the word? Here is my opinion: What fraction of the desktop, server, and mobile market does it now 'own' is far more important than what "principles" the "Ubuntu project" is "publically committed to". What its strengths and weaknesses are (why it is as popular as it is and whether its market share is growing or shrinking) needs to be concisely and clearly mentioned in the lede. There is, afaics, no description of the language(s) in which the "source code" is written, NOR is there any link provided to that source code. A puzzling omission. For that matter, if its free/open source, why isn't there a link to a 'official' download site in the references? Does being "based on" free software mean it IS free software? Who controls its distribution? This article is obfuscatory. The lede is really poor, its obviously "based on" a marketing piece for Shuttleworth and his company, since the last paragraph is mostly about them. 173.189.78.202 (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, if anybody wants to improve the lede (and the article overall) I spent a couple of minutes and got this:

principle download site: www.ubuntu.com
source code: the package sources are divided into an original source tarball plus ubuntu patches, with newer packages are even further sub-divided. The packages can't generally be cross-compiled from a non-Linux system. (On a Windows system you won't be able to compile them. Which means that you can't verify that the executable is actually built from what is claimed to be the source code.)
Note that not everything is in C and C++ - there are packages in just about any language you can imagine.
-- So, in other words while it is putatively "open source", you'd need an encyclopedic knowledge of computer programming languages, and have access to a machine with a Linux OS, to actually do much with it. FWIW 173.189.78.202 (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Screen shots

Please see WP:SCREENSHOT. Even though Ubuntu is FOSS, you might want to cover yourself, since the Amazon logo is not, and add a fair use rationale. As for the obnoxious comment, I don't agree and would prefer that to be discussed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Does the Amazon logo need to be there at all? Why not just delete it and take another shot with only free icons in view? And what obnoxious comment? Are you referring to Samsara's edit summary in reverting you? Elizium23 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
He was talking about this edit. It is indeed obnoxious as it's inappropriate to ask others not to perform certain edits to a page unless there is an existing policy against that edit. I've removed it. -- Chamith (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
For years, users have uploaded useless screenshots that essentially show only the desktop wallpaper and are unsuitable for demonstrating a working operating system. If you scroll down List of Ubuntu releases, you can essentially see a chronology of how our standards have deteriorated in this regard over the years. I don't know where in the universe one might place an appropriate banner - if you have better ideas, I'll be happy to hear them. Samsara 19:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I certainly agree that the wallpaper-alone screenshots are useless for describing how Ubuntu works. We should certainly show icons, windows, essential activities that users undertake every day in order to portray the operating environment accurately. By the same token, we really don't need to include non-free icons or images such as Amazon that would encumber the screenshot unnecessarily. Elizium23 (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I concur with Elizium23. What I wanted to say is that, you could add a hidden comment asking editors to consult the talk page before changing the screenshot rather than outright telling them not to do it. -- Chamith (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
You're now starting to misrepresent what the comment actually said. Did you read it before you removed it? Samsara 20:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it said "PLEASE DO NOT ADD SCREENSHOTS THAT ONLY SHOW THE WALLPAPER...". As far as I know there is (or was) no consensus against adding screenshots. Just because we don't like how it looks, we can't ask users not to make certain edits (unless there is a policy against it). Because, nobody owns Wikipedia articles. To summarize, what I said earlier was that we can use hidden comments to notify editors about this discussion by asking them to see the talk page. -- Chamith (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you see that that's different from your earlier paraphrasing? Samsara 05:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for any misconception caused. -- Chamith (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
(ec) I perfectly agree that there's no need to do that, although the argument of fair use applies, as amazon have apparently entered into a contractual relationship with Canonical that makes them part of Ubuntu. Equally, there is an argument of de minimis as the amazon icon is not itself the subject of the image. In any case, if a substitute can be made, there's no objection from me, I just don't have the appropriate live disc available right now to do it myself. Samsara 20:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I've requested the original uploader for a new screenshot without the Amazon logo. -- Chamith (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ubuntu (operating system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sections seem to be in an improper order

Resolved
 – No one objected.

The sections are present in order ; Features, security, history and development. I think chronologically, history and development should be first. I am changing the order. Please challenge here before reverting. Thanks. canaar (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation needs clarification

Resolved

I see that there is a pronunciation described in the code of the edit section, but it does not appear on the page.Wikidumbo in the haus. (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears as a reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I just saw that--my mistake. Thank you. Wikidumbo in the haus. (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ubuntu in Windows

We need an entire section on this. Early reports and betas suggested that Ubuntu binaries would run, without alteration, under Windows 10 ([6]), and other sources suggested it could also be rolled out in Windows Server 2016, though some are mix-and-matching news about different Windows tech unveiled at the same conference [7]. A more recent source suggests "the new Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) [is] coming soon to Windows 10 Anniversary Update builds", and that current developer builds already have this functionality working [8]. More news: Linux GUI apps can run in this environment [9] (e.g. after installing Ubuntu in Windows, you do apt-get install firefox and use the Linux version of the browser.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

OS family

I think that it is better to put "Unix-like" instead of "Linux" in the OS family line. It would be in line with other Linux distributions, which are all Unix-like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.249.2.148 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that it should remain Linux. I'm surprised that other Linux distros have decided to use UNIX-like. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Several 'Linux' Distro's also use kernel's other than Linux. Debian can run under the Free-BSD Kernel, and now with some work to NT by Microsoft, Ubuntu runs under the Windows 10 NT kernel.

I changed it tp 'Unix-Like', as Ubuntu now supports the Windows 10 NT Kernel, and was added to give Windows a Unix-like feel and compatibility. The Windows 10 Kernel has it's own unix/linux syscalls in it and No Linux Code[1].

Unsupported. Reverted. They are running Ubuntu's shell has been added to Windows. Read https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/03/30/run-bash-on-ubuntu-on-windows/. Because it's open source, that means it can be used by anyone. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Microsoft has made it like Cygwin. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ BASH Running in Ubuntu on Windows - MSDN
Except not. [10] {{'“}}Hum, well it’s like cygwin perhaps?” Nope! Cygwin includes open source utilities are recompiled from source to run natively in Windows. Here, we’re talking about bit-for-bit, checksum-for-checksum Ubuntu ELF binaries running directly in Windows.'  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
"Unix-like" is correct here, at least for the Windows use-case. The hairs can be split in the article prose. The infobox has been clarified (as has much else; I worked this article over for several hours).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there an officially supported Ubuntu spin that doesn't use the linux kernel? If so, then "unix-like" would be more accurate; if not, then "linux" conveys more information to the reader. Inicholson (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Fully agree. It has been a long-standing WP:CONSENSUS position that OSes that have a Linux kernel should link to Linux, not UNIX-like. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Badly needs updating and pruning, throughout (as of June 2016, for Ubuntu 16.04 LTS)

Much of this article addresses specifics of older (sometimes much older) versions of the OS, and is not informative to readers about the OS as it currently is being deployed. Aside from updating, I would suggest that a lot of excessive detail be pruned. This is not the Ubuntu Wiki, and should not dwell on minor details that change from release to release.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Low-quality sources

Too much of this article is dependent on two forms (and several varieties) of low-quality sources, usually impermissible under WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Neutral point of view policies, and the WP:Identifying reliable sources guideline. To wit:

  • Self-published sources:
    • Official publications of Canonical Ltd., including the Unbuntu.com site and its subdomains, Canonical.com and its subdomains, and at least two Ubuntu YouTube channels with official Ubuntu videos. These are non-neutral and primary sources, and may have an apparent conflict of interest. Exceptions are made, only in the case of non-controversial, non-promotional claims, for self-documentation of basic facts about an entity (or its products/services, statements, etc.) by that entity, per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFSOURCE.
    • Random commenters' personal blogs, which are categorically unreliable sources, per WP:BLOGS (unlike professionally edited official staff blogs at reputable publishers, per WP:NEWSBLOG). An exception can be made sometimes for a personal blog, only in the case of non-controversial claims, for "an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." (Not all publications published in blog format, yet not published as staff blogs by news outlines, constitute SPS blogs for the purposes of WP:BLOGS; for example, Phoronix appears to be a professionally edited, high-reputation e-magazine with multiple staff writers.)
    • The personal blog of Canonical's and Ubuntu's founder, Mark Shuttleworth. This particular source is subject to both the restrictions and potential exceptions of both of the above categories, simultaneously.
  • User-generated content:
    • Ubuntu Community Wiki, Ubuntu Forums, Lists.Ubuntu.com, and other mostly or entirely user-written sites/media sponsored by Canonical. These are categorically unreliable sources (except for basic facts about the forum/wiki site itself itself, per ABOUTSELF and SELFSOURCE).
    • Forums and user-edited wikis not hosted by Canonical. These are also categorically unreliable sources.

Several consequences of these rules arise for this article. To enumerate just a few of them:

  1. A large number of statements in the article are cited to personal blogs, forums, and UGC wikis (the official Ubuntu Wiki is not UGC, but the Ubuntu Community Help Wiki is, despite being hosted on the same webserver as Canonical's Ubuntu Official Documentation, in separate directory hierarchies).
  2. A subjective review published in a reliable source is an acceptable primary source, for the reviewer's comments and research (not for external assertions of fact), per WP:RSOPINION. But a self-published, personal-blog review cannot be used, since it is not reliable source from a reputable publisher.
  3. Major claims, such as that so-and-so city/country/etc. has adopted Ubuntu officially, with impressive X, Y and Z results, cannot be sourced to Canonical, *.Ubuntu.com, or MarkShuttleworth.com, per WP:ABOUTSELF: these sources can only be used if "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim", yet such claims are clearly promotional, thus must be cited to secondary, independent reliable sources.

Quite a lot of material in here (much of it of questionable encyclopedic quality – see thread immediately above, on outdated trivia and excessive detail) needs to be re-sourced with higher-quality sources, tagged as needing such source improvement, or simply removed (especially since so much of it relates to obsolete versions of the OS anyway).
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Might be worth it to basically go through and completely re-write it a section at a time? Inicholson (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ubuntu (operating system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Multiple version numbers in the infobox?

There is currently a discussion of whether Template:Infobox OS should be used with multiple version numbers - for example, to list both a "software update" and "next major release" beta, or to list betas from more than one release stream. If you believe that multiple {stable, preview} releases should never appear in that infobox, or if you believe that they should appear under some or all circumstances where there's more than one beta of the OS in question available, you might want to comment there. (I have no strong belief either way; I'm OK with the main OS page listing only the "next major release" beta, but listing betas from multiple streams if they exist, but I'd also be OK with other choices.) Guy Harris (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Debian Free Software Guidelines

It's fair to say Ubuntu is a major option and a good one: but it's simply a lie to say they have followed DFSG or are willign to - way since "debian sarge".

it's fair but i object to "follows DFSG" being in article is all.

it's not fair to say Ubuntu is follows such high standards: infact they tell users to be quiet and upgrade "which will fix it" (and add more bugs needing more upgrades, etc). they split off from debian to make (proprietary debian?) and put tacks in the road, and gave keys to debian to ___________.

many users have complained in the channels of both about decisions going straight against DFSG, like a gov used to pushing others around without repercussion.

it's not fair to say Ubuntu is based on debian unstable. infact most debian CD's have been found and removed off the internet - widely favoring "you must upgrade" to some point

i'll complain they dont support X11 and push only their own (wayland) but i think now there is a renewed X.org package newly/still :)

It's fair to say Ubuntu is a major option and a good one: but it's simply a lie to say they have followed DFSG or are willign to - way since "debian sarge".

they are either ACCOUNTABLE, open, able to be contacted: or it is all a sharade

thank you and i may just upgrade if i get time ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.25 (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Primarily a desktop not a server Linux

This article needs to make it clear that Ubuntu is primarily a desktop, user Linux, not a server OS. While there's some documentation available for some server functions, much of it is outdated, and for complex services (e.g. LDAP), it's pitifully inadequate. For many fairly routine server needs, the closest thing to documentation there is, is various blogs, user forums, and user-written wikis on how to maybe, kinda-sorta, get things to work, in ways that often contradict the formal documentation. It's primarily a problem of features of the OS and the packages provided for it changing rapidly, but the documentation never being written, or not updated in years when it exists at all.

Most of the Linux-related articles here are clear in the lead whether they're talking about a user Linux or a server Linux, and this article is not. This can have real-world consequences, e.g. if someone relies upon the vagueness in this article and assumes that Ubuntu is good to go as their server choice, perhaps attracted by its friendly interface. I really like Ubuntu, and regularly use it, as a user, but I would rather be shot from a railgun into the heart of the sun than ever try to use it for a sever OS again, as I recently had to do for a client (who will now be switching to something else, probably CentOS).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You'd really need a few reliable sources to support that claim. It has a server installation mode. Personal preference aside, it's used in a great many locations as a server. Perform a Google search with the following term:
ubuntu server -site:ubuntu.com -site:askubuntu.com
Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
It is noteworthy that Ubuntu's server documentation is spotty, outdated, and does not even exist except for LTS versions. "Can be used as a server" and "is well suited to be used as a sever" are different things. But, yes, of course we'll need external sources about what Ubuntu is good at and what it's mostly used for. The idea is that our article should actually cover that, not just allow the public to assume that the OS is ideally suited for both desktop and server usage and that sources do not address the OS's strengths and weaknesses in these roles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
What's noteworthy is that haters will hate, hate, hate (that's a song lyric that has a reference) nothing else here does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure who that's in reference to. I'm a daily user of Ubuntu, and feel it (including its variants, with desktop environment of choice) is the best desktop Linux.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
PS: The existence of a separate Ubuntu Server version proves the point unmistakably. This directly mirrors the separation of Windows and Windows server, and Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server (though the latter has been repackaged as a set of applications one installs on top of the base OS, instead of a separate OS package, in recent versions). In all three cases, the difference is really the same thing: The base OS is enhanced with additional features for server use, and optimized in its configurations for server use, often at the expense of desktop (home-office, gaming, etc.) functionality.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hatting off-topic venting.
PS: It hasn't been Mac OS since about 2012. I'm not entirely sure you're the one who should be lecturing on operating systems. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Try to focus on the article content and sourcing instead of needling other editors at a personal level, over pointless trivia, for your own amusement. That behavior will generally backfire spectacularly here, as I'm about to demonstrate. Your objection doesn't even make sense: 1) Mac OS X Server still exists, it simply isn't the current edition; I have a rack-mount system running it, since ca. 2004, in the other room. 2) Mac OS X Server became an add-on instead of a different OS edition with Mac OS X Lion, which, yes, was still Mac OS X, not OS X (a name introduced a major version later, OS X Mountain Lion). So, now that you've made a public ass of yourself, did you have anything actually substantive to contribute to the discussion, that is on-point about the issue raised here? If not, please just move on and leave this to people who actually work with Ubuntu as a server OS, who know what they're talking about, and who actually do the source research, properly, to improve the article. And please stop waving your fanboi junk in everyone's faces; thank you. This is not Usenet or a webboard, and you will not WP:WIN.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

From Canonical's own sites:

  • Supporting HA and HPC seen as "a good way to attract a new crowd to Ubuntu, as well as to help dispell the 'desktop-only' distribution image".[11]

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Cost War for Developers

It is my understanding that Apple's SDK and hosting apps on their app store incurs a fee, but believe Ubuntu offers it at no charge? There is no mention of this advantage while surfing Wiki articles on this topic. Please let me know if this is the situation, and how we can go about repairing this major issue. Very sincerely, Twillisjr (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Twillisjr: I think you're partly wrong about this - free apps can go on the Mac OS X/OS X/macOS app store without fee. For paid apps, the seller pays per sale. HTH, Samsara 21:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ubuntu (operating system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Since When?

Chess is a "lightweight game"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Compare it to graphics-intensive games, chess is a lightweight game. It has very little load on the CPU or GPU. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

please note wikipedia is not meant to be a discussion about video games--Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jonnymoon96: I don't think their discussion is about Chess per se, but rather the content under Ubuntu (operating system)#Features. Nevertheless, I reverted your html strikings per WP:TPO. -- ChamithN (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with ChamithN. It was discussing a statement in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Personal Package Archive

considering this is a Ubuntu based technology i propose merging this with the Ubuntu article Jonnymoon96 (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree, not nearly enough content to pass as a standalone article presently. If this ever changes, it can be split off per established procedure. -- HarJIT (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, please merge.--193.175.2.9 (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. --Nigelj (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge - I agree that the PPA article doesn't have enough content at this point. However, Canonical has announced that they are abandoning the Unity desktop, and their attempt to converge the platforms, so other changes my occur. At this point it makes sense to merge. And then maybe unmerge at some point in the future if PPA becomes something not specific to Ubuntu. But that is just speculation at this point. - Becksguy (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Merged per consensus. - Becksguy (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ubuntu (operating system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Family tree lists Chromium OS

..although Chromium OS says it's based on Gentoo according to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmil (talk • contribs) 20:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Kubuntu and LXQt

The Variants section states that Kubuntu moved from KDE to LXQt, but I did not find anything about such a switch anywhere, so I question this edit. If nobody objects, I'll revert it. And in case this really did happen, at least some sources should be added, since such a switch would be big news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fez1191 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Ubuntu Through The Years 2004-2016.ogg

@Ahunt: This video is official Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Free Culture Showcase. So that's good reason to add in article.
But what's objection? "The dreadful soundtrack". Oh come on, de gustibus non disputandum est --Максим Пе (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay here are my objections: 1. The soundtrack is awful, really distracting and adds nothing to the understanding of the subject; 2. There is no explanation of what the video is showing, which releases the viewer is looking at; 3. There is no time line to indicate when these releases happened; 4. There is no indication if these are all the releases or just selected ones. Overall it is very poor quality, seems like really badly-produced PR stuff and is not suitable encyclopedia content. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I echo the previous comments, mostly that there is no clue which releases are being presented so it offers no encyclopedic information. There's also no proof that the soundtrack—poor audio quality and a style that may not appeal to all listeners—is licensed for use in a presentation like this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous IP claiming Ubuntu is closed source

Recently, a massive edit war happened started by IP 27.33.158.15 who claims that Ubuntu isn't open source, and made changes accordingly. Another user reverted, and added sources linking to http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/, where the actual source code was hosted. The IP instead continued to revert persistently claiming "it isn't open source" and it's "gibberish". I've just posted a 3RR warning to the IP, after the whole war happened. Care to explain why, 27.33.158.15, you think Ubuntu was a closed source system? Ubuntu was usually bundled with open source programs, so it's completely impossible for Ubuntu to be closed source without violating their licenses... theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is a genuine content dispute. One would have to be really "unknowledgeable", shall we say, to make that argument. I think this is just plain old vandalism and am treating it as such. - Ahunt (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
The IP user is now blocked per a complaint at WP:AN3 for making 17 reverts at Ubuntu (operating system). EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ubuntu/Archive_13&oldid=1137279684"