Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

gnubuntu stansa

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

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

Categorization

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

Goobuntu removed as vandalism?

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

This is the section in question that was removed,

• Google has confirmed that they are working internally with an Ubuntu variant they call "Goobuntu", but state that it is for internal use only. [1][2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe you could use your contacts to get either Ubuntu or Google to make a press release? The problem was this: [3] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

TRIVIA

• Ubuntu had a particular package called ubuntu-calendar which downloaded a new desktop wallpaper every month, but these wallpapers featured nude people and were criticized as overly risqué. This led to Ubuntu receiving nicknames such as "Linuxxx" [4] and "The Porn Distro". [5] It was not installed by default, and has been discontinued as of April 2005.

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

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

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

Content to be merged

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dapper Drake, any useful content here should be merged to this article. — Mar. 3, '06 [09:46] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

LSongs and LPhoto

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

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

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

Gnubuntu -> Ubuntu-libre

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

--Easyas12c 09:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Version 6.06

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

Screenshot removal

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

Referencing style

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

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

CNR for Ubuntu (merge to CNR or Linspire)

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

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

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

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

Edgy Eft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaking as a member of the Ubuntu release team, Jonas' comment above is a pretty accurate summary of the situation. Also, extra time doesn't necessarily mean better quality - actually we've sometimes found that tighter deadlines tend to focus people's minds on what's important and make it less likely that people will go off and do things that look interesting but are in fact not so well-tested. Obviously you can't push this too far, but we feel that 4.5 months is adequate enough. And finally, as well as Jonas' point about meeting external expectations, bringing the release cycle sharply back onto track is important for managing internal expectations - it demonstrates that, in a time-based release system, the flip side of the relative luxury of an extended release cycle is having to tighten our metaphorical belts a little the next time round. --Colin Watson 21:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination explanation

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the licensing requirements?

The following passage:

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

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

leaves it unclear what the difference is between Universe and Multiverse. It seems that Ubuntu has a more stringent definition than the FSF [1], but what is it?

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

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

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

It is quite simple...

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

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

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

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

The previous text about "GPL or GPL-compatible" was plain wrong. I've fixed it to have a link to the actual licensing requirements on the Ubuntu web site, which I hope should close this confusion. Colin Watson 21:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Reviews

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

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

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

“ Despite a few rough edges, I think Ubuntu is probably the closest of any Desktop-oriented distro to achieving the long sought after level of usability that will bring Linux to the mainstream. Things work well with little hassle, if they don't you can find a lot of help within the community, and the Ubuntu desktop is attractive and fast. ”

Tom Adelstein in Linux Journal concluded:

“ I anticipate that Ubuntu will become the mainstream Linux distribution globally. As the saying goes, though, only time will tell. However, if you do your due diligence on the company, the sponsor, the spirit of innovation and success of the Ubuntu people, you probably will come to the same conclusion. All the elements have gone into play for rapid success. As they say in my part of the country, this dog can hunt. In addition, it can point and win a show or two if need be. ”

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

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

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

Default desktop background

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

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

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

LTS support from Canonical

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

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

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

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

distrowatch ranking

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

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

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

New image

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

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

Categorisation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

why do you write this here? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Please see Category talk:Ubuntu. OK, I've seen it, and I'm scratching my head over why you said to please see it, as it doesn't address the issue at all. I explained why I had made Category:Ubuntu a sub-category of Category:Linux distributions as well as of Category:Debian-based distributions; I explained (quite clearly, I thought) why this would ordinarily not be correct practice; I explained why I thought that in this case, an exception was merited. Your reply was:

The article was wrongly named. The name of the distribution, is, in fact, "Ubuntu". The article is now called Ubuntu (Linux distribution). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused; why are you telling people to see Category talk:Ubuntu when nothing you said there relates to the issue of categorization? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't seem to be succeeding in helping to guide the editing of this article, so I'll leave it up to the rest of you from now on. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that things seem to have calmed down, maybe we can get back to editing now? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like that. On the subject of categorization: there are rules for categorization. However, there are also reasons behind the rules, and there are strong cultural traditions on Wikipedia reminding us not to be imprisoned by the rules.

The reason for the rules behind categorization is to make it as easily as possible to navigate to the article one is seeking. Right now, it is easier to navigate to Taprobane Linux, a distribution apparently distinguished only by its nation of origin, than it is to navigate to Ubuntu (Linux distribution). I am aware that this is the result of 100% compliance with the letter of the rules, but I think it must be acknowledged that it is not serving the purpose for which the rules were created as well as an exception for this specific case would do. I therefore argue that we should go back to letting Category:Ubuntu be both a sub-category of Category:Debian-based distributions (since it is) and of Category:Linux distributions (since it is a highly prominent member of that category, as well.) Whichever way Category:Ubuntu is categorized, Ubuntu (Linux distribution) should be as well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wanna let you know: I started Category:RPM-based Linux distributions. There can be lot's of subcats. deb/rpm, by license, ... I am not sure what is best. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)