Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Stop removing the Criticism section

People, stop removing the criticism section. Ubuntu isn't perfect. It has flaws! If you're happy, I included links to where I found those criticisms (and I agree with them). Peteturtle 13:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

for the last time, see WP:RS. Before you add it again, post it here to the talk page so that other people can see it and confirm that the sources are infact reliable, because you are headed towards breaking WP:3RR. I'd have no problems with criticizing Ubuntu, although criticism sections are almost entirely unencyclopedic, and one that cites no reliable sources definitely isn't --Lucid 14:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)The points that are brought up seem more like a few dismayed users than any real fundamental criticism of the product. I was bold and removed the Flash line, since it's not a flaw in Ubuntu (because of Adobe's EULA). Criticism should be in the article if it doesn't apply an undue weight and if it presents sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Strangnet _{(t, c)} 14:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above 2 users. To point out problems with each item in turn:

1. - This is not a criticism - it is simply a fact. This is down to licensing, and as such is just a gripe by a random person. Also, the source reads like a blog post, and fails to actually do any research into why this is so.
2. - Again, this is due to the user not doing any research into licensing issues. And again, the source is very poor (I would not say it passes our requirements for WP:RS.
3. - The source is a blog. This is not allowed.

Also, the item which you added previously was unsourced.

Finally, criticism should not be placed all in one section, instead, it should be distributed around the article to the section that is most appropriate. This reduces trolling, vandalism, and prevents the section from becoming POV filled.

So, whilst there are indeed criticisms out there, they should be included with care. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 16:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why are there criticism sections in Mac OS X, Windows XP, but not in any open-source operating system articles? This is quite biased. I even put up references from real people who experienced Ubuntu. Do you really think any OS is perfect? No, and they've all been criticised. Peteturtle 18:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would call for those criticism sections to be reworked into the articles, as they are a nightmare to maintain, a POV magnet and generally A Bad Thing. Also, just because there is criticism about Ubuntu, including it should be looked at carefully - is it really notable enough, considering the nature of the software (ie. free, and no-one is obligated to use it). Also, take into account the volume of praise vs criticism - the criticism comes in at a very low percentage and as such could be considered to be a fringe argument and would be undue weight.

So, to summarise, I would say that the reason open-source articles have little or no criticism is because it would not be NPOV to include it.

Also, 'real people' means nothing - there are millions of posts on the ubuntu forums from real people but they are not suitable for obvious reasons. Sources must have real notability and reliability, and must be of high enough quality that articles are not simply repeating the poorly constructed arguments of random people.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit) I understand the point made about Flash and Adobe's EULA. I know now that Wikipedia doesn't allow links to blogs. Either way, there should be something about criticism. Otherwise, this article would be biased. Peteturtle 18:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, have you read WP:NPOV? Criticism sections usually are biased, as they are WP:UNDUE amongst other things. Anyway, there are criticism sections there because someone put criticism sections there, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. In fact, if you notice on Mac OS X, there is a template to remove the criticism section, as it is NPOV by it's nature. Normally, criticisms are unneeded if they aren't from multiple reliable sources, and worked into the prose of the article. I can't really think of one occasion I've seen a criticism section that was just a listing of problems that wasn't bad for the encyclopedia, which is what everyone should be concerned about here. The articles on Windows, Mac, and Linux OS are written by different people, so they aren't going to be the same, and nor should they be --Lucid 00:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The only time it is acceptable to have "criticism" as a heading of tis own, is when the specific things being criticized can't be worked into the rest of the article, for one reason or another.(This usually occurs when the critics say that the data-point exists, and the proponents say that the data-point does not exist.)

• None of the so-called criticism that was put into the article meets that criteria --- things that one side says don't exist, but the other side claims do exist;
• All of the things listed in criticism are addressed elsewhere in the article, thereby duplicating the content of the article, without adding anything meaningful to it;

jonathon 02:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

L and others. Please assume good faith with Peteturtle who seems to be a reasonably new editor trying to improve this article. Don't just chastise an editor for not copying and pasting and discussing the criticism section; copy and paste it yourself as an example! Don't just list long lists of links with cryptic WP:FOO titles; explain what you mean and use the policy document as a link.

I'll help you with the first part:

== Criticism (revised) ==
* Depending on video card, there are only 3 choices for screen resolution. [1]
* Having to use the shell may be scary to some newcomers to Ubuntu (and Linux
in general), even though Ubuntu's tagline is "Linux for human beings". http://linux-blog.org/index.php?/archives/154-5-Unique-Tips-for-New-Ubuntu-Users.html]

I tend to agree that the second link is probably a poor one because it applies to all distributions, and not Ubuntu and has a weird implication that people who like the command line are not human beings.

I think a rephrasing can probably address the first. How about:

While Ubuntu has been lauded in the technical press, not all reviews have been good. For example, reviewers have criticized the fact that Ubuntu only offers three choices for screen resolution.[2]

I hope this improves the quality of the discussion here. —mako๛ 11:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is though, your quote is either grossly misinterpreting what the person said, or the person didn't know what they were talking about. There is nothing on that page about only being able to pick three of anything, and furthermore the problem isn't even with Ubuntu (if it wasn't the reviewer's own lack of experience), it's with nvidia's linux drivers. The four points listed in that review don't really have much to do with Ubuntu anyway-- 1 is flash, 2 is nvidia, 3 is DVD, 4 is Windows-- all of which are not controlled by the OS, and all of which are proprietary so they cannot be adjusted. The reviewer's seeming lack of an ability to comprehend this, in addition to the "publication"'s extremely shaky reliability would make me think this is very much not a reliable source. I'd be amazed if one of the major linux magazines in print hasn't ripped Ubuntu to shreds for using GNOME or incorporating proprietary elements-- in fact Gobuntu was created because of RMS complaining about this-- so someone just find one and source it --Lucid 12:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Debian has an "Advantages and criticisms" section. This Ubuntu article can just copy and modify the Debian example for now, making it fit Ubuntu. That way it won't be so blatantly obvious to the readers of this article that there is no criticisms section - thus quickly improving the quality of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.8.236.242 (talk) 14:29, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Uh, first of all, just copying and pasting the debian advantages and criticisms is a GFDL violation, which is unacceptable. Secondly, as has already been explained, criticism sections do not improve the quality of the article, if anything they detract from it --lucid 14:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Having just had a look at the section in Debian, I can honestly and truly say that it lowers the quality of that article. The section doesn't say anything. Its 'criticisms' are weak, to say the least - with some simply being unsourced. To add that sort of thing here would most definitely lower the quality of this article and I am 100% against that.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Copying that material from the Debian page won't be a GFDL violation. Correct attribution might get lost, but that is a different issue. However, the criticism for Debian does not appear to apply to Ubuntu. If a criticism section is required --- and I don't see any evidence to indicate that this is so --- then the criticisms have to be specifically related to Ubuntu, and not mentioned elsewhere in the article. jonathon 18:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct attribution being lost is the reason it's a GFDL violation --lucid 19:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lucid is correct, loss of attribution would be a GFDL violation.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism has a bad ring to it. What about a Comparison section. Windows is the most known desktop OS. In this section one can point out the known shortcomings/benefits against Windows. Criticism by it's nature is POV. Comparison is factual. Magi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.112.61 (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There already exist articles Comparison of Windows and Linux and Comparison of open source and closed source. Someone once tried to create a specific Comparison of Windows and Ubuntu Linux, but it was (quite rightly) unanimously deleted for being a pointless duplication. But anyway, comparison and criticism are very different issues: any criticism section in this article would would have to be based on published, reliable criticisms of Ubunutu specifically; lists of things Windows does better & worse than Linux belong in the comparison article above. -- simxp (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Since criticism is not factual, as you say, neither is praise, and this article is full of it. Rather than deleting it, I marked the article as an advert. It does bear an uncanny resemblance to the Ubuntu guide and introduction manual Rosier (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu download page link

I am interested it adding a link to the Ubuntu download page under "External Links", and would like to know what everyone else thinks. Krzysz00 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No thanks, we have a link to the project page, that is all that is necessary.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, localzuk, but i wonder ehat some other people have to say. Krzysz00 17:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I think that there should be a link there so that people can that want to skip all the going though a web site and just download Ubuntu Krzysz00 19:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make a new line for your signatures, it's very annoying. And no, Wikipedia is here to provide an encyclopedia, not quick links to get stuff done. We are not a directory, a link to the project is fine --lucid 19:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a download link to Ubuntu is necessary. All you have to do is type "Ubuntu" into Google and you'll be able to find it very easily. Heck, they'll even mail you a CD for free if you ask. 74.251.200.217 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu Lite

I noticed that the page for Ubuntu Lite redirects to this page, although this page has no information on Ubuntu Lite. 84.51.135.171 10:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Fix References

I don't know how to properly reference so some citations are used repeatedly, yet appear repeatedly under the references section. Can someone please fix this for me?

44 ^ http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/tribe2 45 ^ http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/tribe3 46 ^ http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/tribe3 47 ^ http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/tribe4 48 ^ http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/tribe4 49 ^ http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/tribe5 50 ^ http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/tribe5 51 ^ http://www.ubuntu.com/testing/tribe5

Altonbr 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Done! See Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once for how to do this in the future. MOXFYRE (contrib) 17:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! Altonbr 16:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu category

Category:Ubuntu has been deleted and replaced with Category:Ubuntu (Linux distribution) per WP:CSB (discussion, December 2006). Category:Ubuntu (Linux distribution) was in turn merged to Category:Ubuntu (Linux distribution) derivatives (discussion, April 2007). And now the articles related to the Ubuntu Linux distro are back in the (non-existant) Category:Ubuntu. Might be worth fixing. Rl 09:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu Screenshot

This needs a secondary screenshot- one with a clean desktop using Beryl-- look up my screenshot in the wikimedia commons- UbuntuBeryl.png 129.237.95.122 17:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Version screenshots?

In the Kubuntu article, the evolution of the distro is shown with screenshots next to the version numbers. Why not do the same with the Ubuntu article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteturtle (talk • contribs) 11:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. I also added in a proper Gusty screenshot. Just a thought though: I took screens of the boot screen and uSplash and I thought it would be nice to add those in as well. We could make each image 50px instead of the one screen at 100px for a total of 150px. Too large? It would be informative and show the progression of the OS well.

50 px: --Altonbr 14:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I made large changes to the Releases table and corresponding screenshots (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_%28Linux_distribution%29&oldid=161677606#Releases) --Altonbr 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Link about Gutsy features

www.lunapark6.com/ubuntu-gutsy-gibbon-710-new-features.html

In case anyone wants to write more about Gutsy - search using Tracker rather than beagle may or may not be worth mentioning. 82.71.48.158 10:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot with apps

The current top screenshot is not very informative - the absence of any open apps means people can't get a real feel for Ubuntu as a working environment. Few people spend their days staring at the desktop, and the desktop picture is now included in the table further down. So it would be good if someone could make an 800*600 picture with some open applications, see Image:Edgy with apps.png. 82.71.48.158 10:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If there are still doubts that this is the correct way to do things, please compare with Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Mac OS X, Mac OS X v10.4 etc. Now can we have some apps, please? Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Gutsy screenshot premature?

I know it was "reported" on digg, but my understanding is that the default wallpaper hasn't been finalised, not to mention that anything could happen before Gutsy is released (around October 18). So maybe we should hold back with that. 82.71.48.158 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a real screenshot with the 20070926 nightly build. Hope that's suffice. --Altonbr 14:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A note that its still beta software might be more useful, e.g. "Gutsy Gibbon (beta)" and "Hardy Heron (pending initial development release)" -- Limulus 04:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Releases - Notable Programs

I note that the versions of some things don't square up with what's listed on Distrowatch, e.g. for Warty, the article currently says:

Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0
Mozilla Firefox 1.0

But Distrowatch says:

Thunderbird 0.8
Firefox 0.10.1

-- Limulus 04:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Warty Firefox: [3], Warty Thunderbird [4]. The question is, do you list what was included at the release date, or list the last security update. ccwaters 14:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I went with the major update versions, so Thunderbird may have started as 0.8, but it is stated at 1.0 because it was later implemented and a major release for the Mozilla team. This dates how advanced Ubuntu is and how they often implement newer versions of software. --Altonbr 13:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the version listed should be the one that came with the release; consider that for Windows_98#Editions, they list the version of IE that was released with Windows 98 (4.0) and 98 SE (5.0) and yet during its supported phase, IE 5.5 and 6.0 came out for both. As it stands, the table gives a false impression that Warty was released with Firefox 1.0 As I recall, 0.10 was the pre-release of 1.0 so its not like it was a huge jump from 0.10 to 1.0; contrast with 1.0 to 1.5 or 1.5 to 2.0 If you wanted to note (in the table or somewhere in the article) that they updated certain major packages for security issues, that would be fine -- Limulus 01:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The table is a mess

The table with the list of releases is actually hard to read now, because it has too many columns for pointless info. Why all those screenshots - a pic of boot, login, and desktop for each version? Why have separate columns for version, codename, and testing name? Just how much of that information is actually relevant? (Also, how about a softer green?) -- Stormwatch 03:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the table is a mess. I'm not really sure the correct way to make it better, but consolidating some columns might help... --Falcorian ^(talk) 14:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

At one point (only 2 weeks ago or so), a user added screenshots to the release table just as Kubuntu had done. Since I know uSplash, the login window AND the desktop are all major aethetics that people associate with Ubuntu, I downloaded every version of Ubuntu, loaded it in VMware and took many screens of each. I understand that it is now crowded, but it shows the progression of the Ubuntu aethetics; It's a visual timeline for the non-programmers. How to fix the mess however is another problem. I agree that I have added too much information and that there is now too many columns for a monitor under 1280x1024, but to separate the tables would cause discontinuity as they are all similar topics. Here is the table a day before I edited it for references purposes: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_%28Linux_distribution%29&oldid=161274474#Releases --Altonbr 13:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

How about "piling" the screenshots in the same column? Also, how about putting the version number and codename in the same column? — Stormwatch 16:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is no information as to what the colour highlighting means in the article. I presume red means "no longer supported", green means "current" and blue means "future version" (but that's more a property of the release date than the "supported until" date), but this should be stated in the article. Chaos syndrome 22:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What about stripping the screen shots out of the table, and placing them in a gallery below the table? --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The screenshots need to be "outsourced" as soon as possible. The table is impossible to read. 10:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.192.209 (talk)

Ubuntu Lite AFD decision not followed

The Ubuntu Lite AFD decision wasn't followed, as the article was merged into this one (Ubuntu) which does not contain any info at all on Ubuntu Lite - so it's effectively been deleted. Undo merge is one option, if the content is not to be added back here.

I don't see the problem with a small article, and it avoids the problem of the content and links being deleted from the Ubuntu article. --Chriswaterguy talk 11:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In general I support not throwing every Ubuntu-fork into this article, so agree, probably better to keep it separate. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Response" clarification, inaccuracy

currently the most popular desktop distribution[70] This doesn't say anything like "of any Linux distro." I would imagine that the most popular desktop distribution is a release of Windows.

Windows is a proprietary monolithic operating system and has no concept of different distributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 19:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)