This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
I've added a citation to the fact that some people call the custom live cds "custom spins," but I was not able to find anything stating Canonical's opinion on the subject. The section might be something that should just be removed from the artical, even more so since the section is just two sentences long at the moment. Zen Clark ( talk) 23:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
There should be a list of releases by code name, release date and version number. I cannot find them and am lousy at Wiki-work anyway, but to the best of my memory: Breezy Badger, Hoary Hedgehog, Intrepid Ibex, no doubt 2 or three more. Mark Preston ( talk) 21:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There used a table of the codenames of different versions of ubuntu, like hardy heron, dapper drake, and so on, together with release dates. Was it deleted for some particular reason? I find it quite useful information. Does something speak against restoring it? Thanks for the info. Ben T/ C 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The list should be incorporated in the main article (even if there is some wiki rule against that). It's info a lot of people want about ubuntu, especially since the catching release names are so characteristic of ubuntu. I added the list by copy-pasting. I couldn't stand the dutch wikipedia containing such a list and the english not. I hope i kept to all the conventions by just copy-pasting it. Anybody feel free to further modify it 145.88.209.33 ( talk) 10:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC) (oops, got logged out whils eating the birthday cake of a colleague Pizzaman79 ( talk) 10:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC))
@*#@ (cursing) I now know what kept others from just copy-pasting; the references. I now also copy-pasted all references in the table from the List_of_Ubuntu_releases page. However i propose replacing them all with a single link to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases. However not being an ubuntu user, i feel i've contributed more than my share to this page so i'll leave further improving of this article to others. Pizzaman79 ( talk) 10:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. An anon recently disputed the claim that Ubuntu is the most popular distribution. I believe this claim is well backed by the sources provided (The Desktop Linux Survey, various sets of Distrowatch data, and Google Trends). Some of these sources are not authoritative enough by themselves, but all of them in conjunction are pretty strong evidence that Ubuntu is the most popular linux distribution. Specially considering that in each of these sources Ubuntu wins by a sizable margin (In the 2007 Desktop Linux Survey, it gets 30%, with the second being 20%; in all Distrowatch results it wins with a sizable margin (except in 2007, when PCLinuxOS comes close), and Distrowatch can be considered unfair to Ubuntu because it only counts as Ubuntu those who use GNOME (those using KDE count as Kubuntu, etc.), while all Mandriva users are counted as Mandriva (as far as I know). The Google trends data shows a drastic advantage to Ubuntu. The 2006 Desktop Linux Survey also shows a sizable advantage to Ubuntu. It is true that some of these sources are focused on linux on the Desktop, so someone could claim we are being unfair to Red Hat. But, AFAIK, the word "popular" is about the public at large, so this is well fit. -- Jorge Peixoto ( talk) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ubuntu is an IMPORTANT philosophy of idealism from Africa. The OS, while receiving more queries for the philosophy, is NOWHERE close in importance and the former. Ubuntu should be the page of the philosophy, and having a link on that page as:
Now, can you tell me why Spore is a biological body, Link is not a Video Game character, Fedora is a felt hat, and Ubuntu is an Operative System? Does this make sense? -- Fixman ( talk) 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
SF007 ( talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should be used for the title of the article on that topic. | ” |
“ | If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". | ” |
I'd say that the above pretty definitely qualifies as "extended discussion"... -- simxp ( talk) 17:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Demands Sanity - Wikipedia is losing it. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Ubuntu, and any other term that has several instances/meanings should lead to a disambiguation page, where people select what specification they want to follow. Like browsing in a bloody dictionary, for Pete's sake! -- 89.180.191.40 ( talk) 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Jaunty Jackalope, is new ubuntu code name. See http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10040226-16.html -- 75.150.49.61 ( talk) 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to inform anyone interested that wikipedia has switched to the Ubuntu operating system, as mentioned here:
I would insert that info myself but I'm not sure were to place it, nor if it's appropriate... SF007 ( talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Altonbr ( talk) 14:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Within the text of the article, citation link 74 is listed as an example of an online publication relating to Ubuntu. The fact that the website linked to offers software available for Ubuntu isn't what I would consider a publication relating to Ubuntu. The link points to [1]. 116.212.217.2 ( talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The references titled "distro05", "distro06" and "distro07" are automatically generated. As such, they are no more valuable than Google results pages. These should be replaced with a source written by a human which describes the trend alluded to in the article. If this doesn't happen, they'll be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Since all the GNU/Linux community consider Linux an open source operating system, which can be customized and distributed, and Ubuntu is a Linux distro, what is the reason for saying that Ubuntu is a "operating system based on Linux" (independent), instead of a Linux distro? Note that the official name of Debian, in which Ubuntu is based, is "Debian GNU/Linux", and even some distributions based on Ubuntu are referred as Linux distros, e.g., Linux Mint. If one refers to Ubuntu as an "operating system based on Linux", refers to an hypothetical independent kernel of Ubuntu derived from Linux (but different), and it's not the case. So, I would like to suggest changing the presentation of the article, making clear that Ubuntu is a distribution of Linux, not an operating system itself, for avoiding misconceptions of the readers. Fsolda ( talk) 01:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the edit in question I think. -- Falcorian (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Ubuntu is a free computer operating system based on Debian GNU/Linux.
Ubuntu is a free distribution of the computer operating system Linux, based on the Debian distribution.
Can this os read Windows executable files? -- penubag ( talk) 08:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this info guys. -- penubag ( talk) 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Surely a screenshot that is 95% desktop background is pointless. It would be more illustrative to have a screenshot with a few typical desktop applications running in it. 87.194.156.49 ( talk) 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody else find this article difficult to read with so many of the words linked to other articles? Bodsda ( talk) 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if this was discussed previously in the Archives, but would it be prudent to have this page include information about Ubuntu being offered on netbooks? - Team4Technologies ( talk) 18:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The screenshots in this article do not seem to convey anything appropriate to the sections which they are in. (except the kubuntu one) The main intrepid picture show the GNOME desktop environment and a picture, which doesnt really convey ubuntu as an operating system. The add/remove screenshot has nothing to do with its section "History and development process". The 6.06 screenshot shows nothing more than what is already conveyed by the intrepid screenshot and also has nothing to do with its section "Features". Finally we have the server screenshot which, again, has nothing to do with its section "Alternate Installation". I'm reasonably new to wikipedia so i dont know if this is normal structure for pictures in articles, but to me those screenshots dont add anything useful to the article. I'd be happy to replace them if people agree with me. Thanks, Bodsda ( talk) 18:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest a wikibook about Ubuntu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.84.130.2 ( talk) 07:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors, I'm not 100% sure if this is real/possible, but here is are some screens of Ubuntu/Linux running on Windows:
http://hacktolive.org/wiki/Portable_Ubuntu_for_Windows
-Jerebin
There is clearly a lot of confusion here - with each 'clarification' muddying the waters even further. Please be very careful that everything you put into the article is relevant and specific to Ubuntu, is referenced, and says exactly what the reference says.
Please distinguish, at least, that is has been possible for some years to run any Linux OS in a virtual machine on MS Windows and that several virtualisation systems allow a 'transparent' Linux desktop, so that Linux apps appear to be running alongside MS Windows apps. In fact the MS Windows apps are 'appearing' through a transparent, full-screen, virtualised Linux desktop. Nothing specific to Ubuntu here. Secondly, all KDE apps are based on the Qt (toolkit), which has always been cross-platform, including the ability to run on MS Windows and most Linuxes. There is a project at http://windows.kde.org/ that seems to be devoted to getting all the KDE stuff working on MS Windows, but it says, "KDE on Windows is not in the final state, so applications can be unsuitable for day to day use yet." This has nothing whatsoever to do with Ubuntu, and very little to do with Linux in general apart from the fact that most KDE apps already work on most Linuxes including Ubuntu. It also has nothing to do with virtualisation either as far as I know.
Also, be aware that in the world of free and open-source software ( FLOSS), you can often download and install things that barely work and really are not finished. This is not wrong - you are free to help to finish them off if you have the skills - but don't be surprised when such things don't work. If the version number is less than 1.0 (e.g. 0.4 etc) of if the website says in bold, "unsuitable for day to day use", don't mix this up with stable, released and trustworthy things like Ubuntu, KDE and Linux themselves. -- Nigelj ( talk) 15:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of security in Ubuntu? Apart from the line about closed ports for added security? -- Neutralle ( talk) 10:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I noted this article has recently got big work on, and I think its good for FA again. S I'm making this survey before nominating.
I would like to say I agree with this edit and the reasoning behind it. Chillum 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
How does removing that section misrepresent a source? Am I misunderstanding you? Chillum 14:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This post refers to this edit, which replaced " Unix-like" with " GNU/Linux" under operating system family. I disagree with this edit, but I suspect that the issue may be contentious and I don't want to start an edit war so I'm seeking comment here.
My argument is as follows: Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. Moreover, it refers to a *specific* kernel - i.e., the one written in the early '90s by Linus - not a family, whereas "Unix-like" unambiguosly refers to a group of operating systems united by a similar design, encompassing UNIX, Solaris, the BSDs and all operating systems that use the Linux kernel.
Misread the edit - new argument below.
GNU/Linux is a specific operating system, not a family. The term can refer to only one operating system, that created by combining Linux and the GNU software. Each Linux distribution is just that - a distribution, not a new OS. "Unix-like" unambiguously refers to a group of operating systems united by a similar design, encompassing UNIX, Solaris, the BSDs and all operating systems that use the Linux kernel.
Thoughts? -- Aseld talk 13:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Linux is not a *family* of operating systems; it is a kernel (or a single operating system, depending on where you stand in the Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate). In the Linux article itself, which uses the operating system infobox, the OS family is listed as Unix-like. I argue that, by extension, this family should apply to all variants of GNU/Linux, including Ubuntu.
Saying that Ubuntu is a Unix-like OS without mention to Linux *in that sentence* is not incoherent, it is a statement of fact. Of course the fact that Ubuntu uses the Linux kernel should be mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox under "OS family". In fact, it's already in the infobox, under "Kernel type".
Again: please no edits to "OS family" until consensus is reached here. -- Aseld talk 14:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
At first the icons of Ubuntu desktop were changed, and now they have been replaced with black boxes? I agree that if we intend to show the user how Ubuntu looks right from the box, that nothing should be altered but I don't think black-boxing everything is a solution. Now I don't know the Wikipedia copyright laws but the icons we're censoring out here are the Ubuntu and Firefox icons, yet they are shown in the Ubuntu and Firefox article respectively! So we're allowed to show the Ubuntu logo on the Ubuntu page, but not a smaller version of it, 2 cm under it? Can't we just use the same licenses we use on these two pictures? This doesn't make sense to me. -- BiT ( talk) 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Ubuntu and its derivatives change every 6 months, sometimes dramatically. Guidebooks, "tutorials", references, and websites that are 2-3 years old are misleading and confusing, and are not relevant to current versions of Ubuntu (and its derivatives). Many of the references and "Further Reading links" are mere advertising for books about Ubuntu versions that are long out of date and not even supported any longer. They provide a disservice to the community by providing currently inaccurate information. These have been commented out and will be removed unless valid justification for their retention can be made.
References pertinent to currently supported versions of Ubuntu should be retained, but there should be some effort to designate that the reference is applicable to a specific version of Ubuntu. Passeportout ( talk) 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Current Release Table is, in My opinion, bloated. My proposition is to make it look more like the one from Debian release. I've made a sample ( Ubuntu Release Table) to show the new look. List of changes:
It would be nice to add column with highlighted release notes. Some major changes (like droping PPC support, switching to Pulseaudio etc.)
KrzysztofKlimonda ( talk) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed table from main article but this change was reverted. I'm not going to "rerevert" it as obviously someone thinks we should discuss this change further. So the question is if we should keep this (or mine) table or remove it. FWIW, I have to agree with SF007 that keeping it in the main article dosen't have to much sense. Especially when we have an article focused on Ubuntu releases with the same table. edit: and i've forgotten to sign myself.. KrzysztofKlimonda ( talk) 10:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Although being a linux (sometimes ubuntu) user, I strongly disagree with the fact that ubuntu's first entrance is the OS and not the philosophy concept (from where its name was picked) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.36.36.177 ( talk) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just ordered an AMD64 (LE-1660) socket AM2 base unit from Meshcomputers.com with Ubuntu. SLUGLOVING ( talk) 12:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I know the vendor support section for Dell is out of data, might want to check with other vendors and keep an eye on this section cause it changes fast. Spike the Dingo ( talk) 17:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Ubuntu's often cited superiority to Debian is the notion that it makes "releases" every six months. I don't think it is fair, however, that Ubuntu acts as if these releases and their LTS (long term support) releases are the same thing. In my opinion, the LTS releases are the real releases and the 6-month state bookmarking is just a publicity stunt. From the perspective of an organization using the system for production work they cannot realistically run off anything but the LTS releases and the 6-month releases don't exist. Specifically, I would think that LTS users cannot upgrade to interim releases without voiding their support contracts. In contrast, all Debian releases are "supported" with security fixes and updates and come out roughly every 18 months. By this measure, the Debian release cycle beats Ubuntu by a full six months. I think this duality should be reflected in any part of this article which promotes the marketing-based "6 month release cycle" of Ubuntu. Ean Schuessler ( talk) 21:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There's some dispute currently over the proper target of the link to Ubuntu. I can get behind the idea that this page should be at Ubuntu (operating system), as it currently is, but not that Ubuntu should go directly to Ubuntu (philosophy). So, in my opinion, it should go either to Ubuntu (disambiguation) or continue to redirect here, which used to be the primary Ubuntu article. What do other people think? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the mini-revert back-and-forth over the addition of free software to the source model, I want to agree with Grandscribe edit which has now been reverted twice with a comment to take it to the talk page. I wrote the original documentation on the Ubuntu website when the project started. At Ubuntu, we used both the terms free software and open source because, while the products and licenses are the same, the models and motivations are not. The use of both terms is common on the Ubuntu website and I don't see any serious disadvantage to mentioning both here and linking to both articles -- the free software and open source articles are different after all. Ubuntu itself says it's both, so I see no reason that this article shouldn't do the same. — mako ๛ 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that the "source model" field be deprecated from the OS Infobox. See Template talk:Infobox_OS#Source model. -- Ashawley ( talk) 23:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that the List of Ubuntu releases page should be merged into the releases section of the main article. The fact that there are two releases a year means that the differences between successive releases is relatively minor (compared to differences between Windows releases). Most of the sections in the list article just contain information about the packages contained in each release, which could just be replaced with the existing table. Also, other major distributions do not appear to have a separate article for a list of releases ( Debian, openSUSE, Fedora). [ mad pierrot ] 18:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I am opposed to the merge, it'll either clutter up this page or result in a net loss of information. Either result would be inferior to the current situation. -- Falcorian (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose that we re-classify this article under 'OS family: Multics' in the info box, for the reason that Unix is based on Multics. MFNickster ( talk) 03:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The only negative thing in the entire article is the "lack of an integrated desktop effects manager". There are certainly bigger, deeper problems than this one random little thing. If this article were NPOV, they would be addressed. You might start with the most popular requests on Ubuntu Brainstorm, for instance. http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/most_popular_ever/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.73.107 ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 September 2009
If you are going to change any of the screenshots, please make sure the caption is updated (if necessary) to reflect the changes. For example, if you are going to replace a screenshot showing the Shiki Colors theme with a screenshot showing the New Wave theme, please make sure that you change the name of the theme in the caption. Thanks. -- Mr. Corgi ( talk) 12:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Ubuntu is, strictly speaking, NOT an operating system. Rather, it is a specific variant of the Debian distribution of GNU/Linux, the best definition I've seen of which is here. At the risk of re-opening the can of worms, suggest moving this and similar pages to "Ubuntu (Linux distribution", renaming as appropriate. Alan ( talk) 23:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
UbuntuGnuLinuxOs ubuntu = new UbuntuGnuLinuxOs();
That depdnds on what you call an Operating System. Stricly speaking, Linux is not an Operating System, since it doesn't have functionality to let the user interact with it. The term GNU/Linux actually means Linux (the kernel) + GNU programs (like bash). Ubuntu, on the other hand, can be called a "fork" of GNU/Linux, and so its an operating system of its own right. Fixman Praise me 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
People, do you even read sources of definition which you discuss ?
GNU's kernel isn't finished, so GNU is used with the kernel Linux. The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system, now used by millions.
Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are many variants or “distributions” of GNU/Linux. [1]
http://saeedgnu.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/gnu-linux_chart-3.png [2]
So, "Ubuntu" is a distribution of "GNU/Linux" operating system. A distibution. And it IS "GNU/Linux", but "GNU/Linux" is NOT Ubuntu. You see, "GNU" itself MAY be an Operating System since it has vast and working userspace and it has a kernel - Hurd. But it's incomplete and not used by almost, if not totally, anyone. That's why you do not know about The "GNU" Operating System and know about "GNU/Linux" or "GNU userspace on top of Linux kernel" Operating System.
So, "GNU/Linux" IS an Operating System BUT most of the _GNU userspace_ and _Linux kernel_ parts can be optionally enabled, disabled or interchanged, also non-GNU components may be added or even proprietary components. All of that together been put on public creates A Distribution which, for example, IS Ubuntu.
Ubuntu, Fedora, Gentoo, OpenSuSe or etc. is question of distribution policy and philosophy of key members in distributing organization, say Canonical, Novell, Gentoo Foundation or RedHat. Thing about "<something> Linux" is often just a trademark or oversimplified "term" for newcomers.
Do you know that YOU can actually create a "GNU/FreeBSD" out of Ubuntu and it will be an Operating System but it will not "Ubuntu" anymore ?
Or you can replace Gnome with KDE in it and get "GNU/Linux" Operating System which has different distributing policy and userspace components named, say, "Not_Kubuntu".
Ubuntu distribution consists of (=): distributor-customized Linux kernel + distributor-customized GNU userspace + distributor-chosen and distributor-customized Non-GNU Free software + distributor-chosen proprietary software, in which Linux is an absolute system core and GNU is core userspace for most other software layers and biggest layer itself. That's why term "GNU/Linux" is mostly always preferred but not mandatory.
All in all, You CAN call it an Operating System but really it IS a "GNU/Linux distribution from Canonical Ltd.", called (trademarked) "Ubuntu" which ,i insist, is preferred for encyclopedia.
And what it surely NOT is "Linux distribution". DamnedFoX ( talk) 05:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
I've added a citation to the fact that some people call the custom live cds "custom spins," but I was not able to find anything stating Canonical's opinion on the subject. The section might be something that should just be removed from the artical, even more so since the section is just two sentences long at the moment. Zen Clark ( talk) 23:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
There should be a list of releases by code name, release date and version number. I cannot find them and am lousy at Wiki-work anyway, but to the best of my memory: Breezy Badger, Hoary Hedgehog, Intrepid Ibex, no doubt 2 or three more. Mark Preston ( talk) 21:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There used a table of the codenames of different versions of ubuntu, like hardy heron, dapper drake, and so on, together with release dates. Was it deleted for some particular reason? I find it quite useful information. Does something speak against restoring it? Thanks for the info. Ben T/ C 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The list should be incorporated in the main article (even if there is some wiki rule against that). It's info a lot of people want about ubuntu, especially since the catching release names are so characteristic of ubuntu. I added the list by copy-pasting. I couldn't stand the dutch wikipedia containing such a list and the english not. I hope i kept to all the conventions by just copy-pasting it. Anybody feel free to further modify it 145.88.209.33 ( talk) 10:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC) (oops, got logged out whils eating the birthday cake of a colleague Pizzaman79 ( talk) 10:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC))
@*#@ (cursing) I now know what kept others from just copy-pasting; the references. I now also copy-pasted all references in the table from the List_of_Ubuntu_releases page. However i propose replacing them all with a single link to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases. However not being an ubuntu user, i feel i've contributed more than my share to this page so i'll leave further improving of this article to others. Pizzaman79 ( talk) 10:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. An anon recently disputed the claim that Ubuntu is the most popular distribution. I believe this claim is well backed by the sources provided (The Desktop Linux Survey, various sets of Distrowatch data, and Google Trends). Some of these sources are not authoritative enough by themselves, but all of them in conjunction are pretty strong evidence that Ubuntu is the most popular linux distribution. Specially considering that in each of these sources Ubuntu wins by a sizable margin (In the 2007 Desktop Linux Survey, it gets 30%, with the second being 20%; in all Distrowatch results it wins with a sizable margin (except in 2007, when PCLinuxOS comes close), and Distrowatch can be considered unfair to Ubuntu because it only counts as Ubuntu those who use GNOME (those using KDE count as Kubuntu, etc.), while all Mandriva users are counted as Mandriva (as far as I know). The Google trends data shows a drastic advantage to Ubuntu. The 2006 Desktop Linux Survey also shows a sizable advantage to Ubuntu. It is true that some of these sources are focused on linux on the Desktop, so someone could claim we are being unfair to Red Hat. But, AFAIK, the word "popular" is about the public at large, so this is well fit. -- Jorge Peixoto ( talk) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Ubuntu is an IMPORTANT philosophy of idealism from Africa. The OS, while receiving more queries for the philosophy, is NOWHERE close in importance and the former. Ubuntu should be the page of the philosophy, and having a link on that page as:
Now, can you tell me why Spore is a biological body, Link is not a Video Game character, Fedora is a felt hat, and Ubuntu is an Operative System? Does this make sense? -- Fixman ( talk) 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
SF007 ( talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should be used for the title of the article on that topic. | ” |
“ | If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". | ” |
I'd say that the above pretty definitely qualifies as "extended discussion"... -- simxp ( talk) 17:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Demands Sanity - Wikipedia is losing it. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Ubuntu, and any other term that has several instances/meanings should lead to a disambiguation page, where people select what specification they want to follow. Like browsing in a bloody dictionary, for Pete's sake! -- 89.180.191.40 ( talk) 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Jaunty Jackalope, is new ubuntu code name. See http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10040226-16.html -- 75.150.49.61 ( talk) 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to inform anyone interested that wikipedia has switched to the Ubuntu operating system, as mentioned here:
I would insert that info myself but I'm not sure were to place it, nor if it's appropriate... SF007 ( talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Altonbr ( talk) 14:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Within the text of the article, citation link 74 is listed as an example of an online publication relating to Ubuntu. The fact that the website linked to offers software available for Ubuntu isn't what I would consider a publication relating to Ubuntu. The link points to [1]. 116.212.217.2 ( talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The references titled "distro05", "distro06" and "distro07" are automatically generated. As such, they are no more valuable than Google results pages. These should be replaced with a source written by a human which describes the trend alluded to in the article. If this doesn't happen, they'll be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Since all the GNU/Linux community consider Linux an open source operating system, which can be customized and distributed, and Ubuntu is a Linux distro, what is the reason for saying that Ubuntu is a "operating system based on Linux" (independent), instead of a Linux distro? Note that the official name of Debian, in which Ubuntu is based, is "Debian GNU/Linux", and even some distributions based on Ubuntu are referred as Linux distros, e.g., Linux Mint. If one refers to Ubuntu as an "operating system based on Linux", refers to an hypothetical independent kernel of Ubuntu derived from Linux (but different), and it's not the case. So, I would like to suggest changing the presentation of the article, making clear that Ubuntu is a distribution of Linux, not an operating system itself, for avoiding misconceptions of the readers. Fsolda ( talk) 01:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the edit in question I think. -- Falcorian (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Ubuntu is a free computer operating system based on Debian GNU/Linux.
Ubuntu is a free distribution of the computer operating system Linux, based on the Debian distribution.
Can this os read Windows executable files? -- penubag ( talk) 08:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this info guys. -- penubag ( talk) 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Surely a screenshot that is 95% desktop background is pointless. It would be more illustrative to have a screenshot with a few typical desktop applications running in it. 87.194.156.49 ( talk) 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody else find this article difficult to read with so many of the words linked to other articles? Bodsda ( talk) 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if this was discussed previously in the Archives, but would it be prudent to have this page include information about Ubuntu being offered on netbooks? - Team4Technologies ( talk) 18:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The screenshots in this article do not seem to convey anything appropriate to the sections which they are in. (except the kubuntu one) The main intrepid picture show the GNOME desktop environment and a picture, which doesnt really convey ubuntu as an operating system. The add/remove screenshot has nothing to do with its section "History and development process". The 6.06 screenshot shows nothing more than what is already conveyed by the intrepid screenshot and also has nothing to do with its section "Features". Finally we have the server screenshot which, again, has nothing to do with its section "Alternate Installation". I'm reasonably new to wikipedia so i dont know if this is normal structure for pictures in articles, but to me those screenshots dont add anything useful to the article. I'd be happy to replace them if people agree with me. Thanks, Bodsda ( talk) 18:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest a wikibook about Ubuntu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.84.130.2 ( talk) 07:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors, I'm not 100% sure if this is real/possible, but here is are some screens of Ubuntu/Linux running on Windows:
http://hacktolive.org/wiki/Portable_Ubuntu_for_Windows
-Jerebin
There is clearly a lot of confusion here - with each 'clarification' muddying the waters even further. Please be very careful that everything you put into the article is relevant and specific to Ubuntu, is referenced, and says exactly what the reference says.
Please distinguish, at least, that is has been possible for some years to run any Linux OS in a virtual machine on MS Windows and that several virtualisation systems allow a 'transparent' Linux desktop, so that Linux apps appear to be running alongside MS Windows apps. In fact the MS Windows apps are 'appearing' through a transparent, full-screen, virtualised Linux desktop. Nothing specific to Ubuntu here. Secondly, all KDE apps are based on the Qt (toolkit), which has always been cross-platform, including the ability to run on MS Windows and most Linuxes. There is a project at http://windows.kde.org/ that seems to be devoted to getting all the KDE stuff working on MS Windows, but it says, "KDE on Windows is not in the final state, so applications can be unsuitable for day to day use yet." This has nothing whatsoever to do with Ubuntu, and very little to do with Linux in general apart from the fact that most KDE apps already work on most Linuxes including Ubuntu. It also has nothing to do with virtualisation either as far as I know.
Also, be aware that in the world of free and open-source software ( FLOSS), you can often download and install things that barely work and really are not finished. This is not wrong - you are free to help to finish them off if you have the skills - but don't be surprised when such things don't work. If the version number is less than 1.0 (e.g. 0.4 etc) of if the website says in bold, "unsuitable for day to day use", don't mix this up with stable, released and trustworthy things like Ubuntu, KDE and Linux themselves. -- Nigelj ( talk) 15:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of security in Ubuntu? Apart from the line about closed ports for added security? -- Neutralle ( talk) 10:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I noted this article has recently got big work on, and I think its good for FA again. S I'm making this survey before nominating.
I would like to say I agree with this edit and the reasoning behind it. Chillum 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
How does removing that section misrepresent a source? Am I misunderstanding you? Chillum 14:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This post refers to this edit, which replaced " Unix-like" with " GNU/Linux" under operating system family. I disagree with this edit, but I suspect that the issue may be contentious and I don't want to start an edit war so I'm seeking comment here.
My argument is as follows: Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. Moreover, it refers to a *specific* kernel - i.e., the one written in the early '90s by Linus - not a family, whereas "Unix-like" unambiguosly refers to a group of operating systems united by a similar design, encompassing UNIX, Solaris, the BSDs and all operating systems that use the Linux kernel.
Misread the edit - new argument below.
GNU/Linux is a specific operating system, not a family. The term can refer to only one operating system, that created by combining Linux and the GNU software. Each Linux distribution is just that - a distribution, not a new OS. "Unix-like" unambiguously refers to a group of operating systems united by a similar design, encompassing UNIX, Solaris, the BSDs and all operating systems that use the Linux kernel.
Thoughts? -- Aseld talk 13:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Linux is not a *family* of operating systems; it is a kernel (or a single operating system, depending on where you stand in the Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate). In the Linux article itself, which uses the operating system infobox, the OS family is listed as Unix-like. I argue that, by extension, this family should apply to all variants of GNU/Linux, including Ubuntu.
Saying that Ubuntu is a Unix-like OS without mention to Linux *in that sentence* is not incoherent, it is a statement of fact. Of course the fact that Ubuntu uses the Linux kernel should be mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox under "OS family". In fact, it's already in the infobox, under "Kernel type".
Again: please no edits to "OS family" until consensus is reached here. -- Aseld talk 14:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
At first the icons of Ubuntu desktop were changed, and now they have been replaced with black boxes? I agree that if we intend to show the user how Ubuntu looks right from the box, that nothing should be altered but I don't think black-boxing everything is a solution. Now I don't know the Wikipedia copyright laws but the icons we're censoring out here are the Ubuntu and Firefox icons, yet they are shown in the Ubuntu and Firefox article respectively! So we're allowed to show the Ubuntu logo on the Ubuntu page, but not a smaller version of it, 2 cm under it? Can't we just use the same licenses we use on these two pictures? This doesn't make sense to me. -- BiT ( talk) 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Ubuntu and its derivatives change every 6 months, sometimes dramatically. Guidebooks, "tutorials", references, and websites that are 2-3 years old are misleading and confusing, and are not relevant to current versions of Ubuntu (and its derivatives). Many of the references and "Further Reading links" are mere advertising for books about Ubuntu versions that are long out of date and not even supported any longer. They provide a disservice to the community by providing currently inaccurate information. These have been commented out and will be removed unless valid justification for their retention can be made.
References pertinent to currently supported versions of Ubuntu should be retained, but there should be some effort to designate that the reference is applicable to a specific version of Ubuntu. Passeportout ( talk) 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Current Release Table is, in My opinion, bloated. My proposition is to make it look more like the one from Debian release. I've made a sample ( Ubuntu Release Table) to show the new look. List of changes:
It would be nice to add column with highlighted release notes. Some major changes (like droping PPC support, switching to Pulseaudio etc.)
KrzysztofKlimonda ( talk) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed table from main article but this change was reverted. I'm not going to "rerevert" it as obviously someone thinks we should discuss this change further. So the question is if we should keep this (or mine) table or remove it. FWIW, I have to agree with SF007 that keeping it in the main article dosen't have to much sense. Especially when we have an article focused on Ubuntu releases with the same table. edit: and i've forgotten to sign myself.. KrzysztofKlimonda ( talk) 10:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Although being a linux (sometimes ubuntu) user, I strongly disagree with the fact that ubuntu's first entrance is the OS and not the philosophy concept (from where its name was picked) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.36.36.177 ( talk) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Just ordered an AMD64 (LE-1660) socket AM2 base unit from Meshcomputers.com with Ubuntu. SLUGLOVING ( talk) 12:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I know the vendor support section for Dell is out of data, might want to check with other vendors and keep an eye on this section cause it changes fast. Spike the Dingo ( talk) 17:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Ubuntu's often cited superiority to Debian is the notion that it makes "releases" every six months. I don't think it is fair, however, that Ubuntu acts as if these releases and their LTS (long term support) releases are the same thing. In my opinion, the LTS releases are the real releases and the 6-month state bookmarking is just a publicity stunt. From the perspective of an organization using the system for production work they cannot realistically run off anything but the LTS releases and the 6-month releases don't exist. Specifically, I would think that LTS users cannot upgrade to interim releases without voiding their support contracts. In contrast, all Debian releases are "supported" with security fixes and updates and come out roughly every 18 months. By this measure, the Debian release cycle beats Ubuntu by a full six months. I think this duality should be reflected in any part of this article which promotes the marketing-based "6 month release cycle" of Ubuntu. Ean Schuessler ( talk) 21:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
There's some dispute currently over the proper target of the link to Ubuntu. I can get behind the idea that this page should be at Ubuntu (operating system), as it currently is, but not that Ubuntu should go directly to Ubuntu (philosophy). So, in my opinion, it should go either to Ubuntu (disambiguation) or continue to redirect here, which used to be the primary Ubuntu article. What do other people think? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the mini-revert back-and-forth over the addition of free software to the source model, I want to agree with Grandscribe edit which has now been reverted twice with a comment to take it to the talk page. I wrote the original documentation on the Ubuntu website when the project started. At Ubuntu, we used both the terms free software and open source because, while the products and licenses are the same, the models and motivations are not. The use of both terms is common on the Ubuntu website and I don't see any serious disadvantage to mentioning both here and linking to both articles -- the free software and open source articles are different after all. Ubuntu itself says it's both, so I see no reason that this article shouldn't do the same. — mako ๛ 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that the "source model" field be deprecated from the OS Infobox. See Template talk:Infobox_OS#Source model. -- Ashawley ( talk) 23:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that the List of Ubuntu releases page should be merged into the releases section of the main article. The fact that there are two releases a year means that the differences between successive releases is relatively minor (compared to differences between Windows releases). Most of the sections in the list article just contain information about the packages contained in each release, which could just be replaced with the existing table. Also, other major distributions do not appear to have a separate article for a list of releases ( Debian, openSUSE, Fedora). [ mad pierrot ] 18:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I am opposed to the merge, it'll either clutter up this page or result in a net loss of information. Either result would be inferior to the current situation. -- Falcorian (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose that we re-classify this article under 'OS family: Multics' in the info box, for the reason that Unix is based on Multics. MFNickster ( talk) 03:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The only negative thing in the entire article is the "lack of an integrated desktop effects manager". There are certainly bigger, deeper problems than this one random little thing. If this article were NPOV, they would be addressed. You might start with the most popular requests on Ubuntu Brainstorm, for instance. http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/most_popular_ever/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.73.107 ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 September 2009
If you are going to change any of the screenshots, please make sure the caption is updated (if necessary) to reflect the changes. For example, if you are going to replace a screenshot showing the Shiki Colors theme with a screenshot showing the New Wave theme, please make sure that you change the name of the theme in the caption. Thanks. -- Mr. Corgi ( talk) 12:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Ubuntu is, strictly speaking, NOT an operating system. Rather, it is a specific variant of the Debian distribution of GNU/Linux, the best definition I've seen of which is here. At the risk of re-opening the can of worms, suggest moving this and similar pages to "Ubuntu (Linux distribution", renaming as appropriate. Alan ( talk) 23:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
UbuntuGnuLinuxOs ubuntu = new UbuntuGnuLinuxOs();
That depdnds on what you call an Operating System. Stricly speaking, Linux is not an Operating System, since it doesn't have functionality to let the user interact with it. The term GNU/Linux actually means Linux (the kernel) + GNU programs (like bash). Ubuntu, on the other hand, can be called a "fork" of GNU/Linux, and so its an operating system of its own right. Fixman Praise me 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
People, do you even read sources of definition which you discuss ?
GNU's kernel isn't finished, so GNU is used with the kernel Linux. The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system, now used by millions.
Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are many variants or “distributions” of GNU/Linux. [1]
http://saeedgnu.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/gnu-linux_chart-3.png [2]
So, "Ubuntu" is a distribution of "GNU/Linux" operating system. A distibution. And it IS "GNU/Linux", but "GNU/Linux" is NOT Ubuntu. You see, "GNU" itself MAY be an Operating System since it has vast and working userspace and it has a kernel - Hurd. But it's incomplete and not used by almost, if not totally, anyone. That's why you do not know about The "GNU" Operating System and know about "GNU/Linux" or "GNU userspace on top of Linux kernel" Operating System.
So, "GNU/Linux" IS an Operating System BUT most of the _GNU userspace_ and _Linux kernel_ parts can be optionally enabled, disabled or interchanged, also non-GNU components may be added or even proprietary components. All of that together been put on public creates A Distribution which, for example, IS Ubuntu.
Ubuntu, Fedora, Gentoo, OpenSuSe or etc. is question of distribution policy and philosophy of key members in distributing organization, say Canonical, Novell, Gentoo Foundation or RedHat. Thing about "<something> Linux" is often just a trademark or oversimplified "term" for newcomers.
Do you know that YOU can actually create a "GNU/FreeBSD" out of Ubuntu and it will be an Operating System but it will not "Ubuntu" anymore ?
Or you can replace Gnome with KDE in it and get "GNU/Linux" Operating System which has different distributing policy and userspace components named, say, "Not_Kubuntu".
Ubuntu distribution consists of (=): distributor-customized Linux kernel + distributor-customized GNU userspace + distributor-chosen and distributor-customized Non-GNU Free software + distributor-chosen proprietary software, in which Linux is an absolute system core and GNU is core userspace for most other software layers and biggest layer itself. That's why term "GNU/Linux" is mostly always preferred but not mandatory.
All in all, You CAN call it an Operating System but really it IS a "GNU/Linux distribution from Canonical Ltd.", called (trademarked) "Ubuntu" which ,i insist, is preferred for encyclopedia.
And what it surely NOT is "Linux distribution". DamnedFoX ( talk) 05:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)