![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 |
This page isn't really about history, as it includes future releases. Maybe it should be just "Ubuntu Releases"?
Jayen Ashar ( talk) 23:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I took out the information about Jaunty, which contained the impossible statement that Jaunty will have Pidgin 2.6, which does not exist, among the list of software packages. This was the only one with a citation, and whatever the actual citation meant, it didn't mean what it said. The whole bit about Jaunty should be audited closely to make sure it is accurate. Do not just restore the deletion, check it. Papna ( talk) 06:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it ok to add a screenshot of the default desktop for jaunty now? I know all is subject to change, but it would give something more to the section for now. - Old Marcus ( talk) 12:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
(This proposition was made on Ubuntu talk page)
I've proposed to clean up table to look like this: Ubuntu Releases table mockup.
Current table has, in My opinion, way too much details (especially all those refs and dates converted into links).
(and yes, i know that 6.06 is still supported - it's only a mockup. :) ) KrzysztofKlimonda ( talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll second that. The color coded "supported/not support/etc" looks good. The only thing I would change is order. I'd have future released first and it would go back in history all the way to Warty Warthog.-- Larr¥ 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Some Ubuntu LTS versions keep the same name and number while undergoing significant kernel upgrades. For example, Precise Pangolin 12.04
used these kernel versions: 3.2, 3.5, 3.8, 3.11, 3.13. The
List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Table_of_versions doesn't currently reflect this fact.
This Ask Ubuntu answer does reflect that fact (e.g. 12.04 is listed as "3.2 or newer"), and the comments below it may be useful.
Open4D (
talk)
13:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but shouldn't the different versions have their own article? This works fine for Microsoft, with Windows XP and Vista for example. Quispiam ( talk) 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Whatever happened to this idea? This article does need a major cleanup, but I'm not sure how to do it. Perhaps articles could be written for each LTS release and a general re-organization for the article. [mad pierrot] [t c] 00:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've started a merger discussion at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)#Merger proposal with list of releases page. I just don't think the differences between each version is great enough to merit this page, or merit a page for each release. [ mad pierrot ] 18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I read on Softpedia that Ubuntu 9.10 won't have a new theme. Softpedia quoted the information from Shuttleworth I believe. Is Softpedia a reliable source?
Can't find the article right now, but when I do I'll link it. -- Old Marcus ( talk) 07:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Link: Ubuntu 9.10 Alpha 2 Released -- Old Marcus ( talk) 07:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added citations to the expected packages section and removed the citation needed tag. The launchpad pages are a little hard to read, but you can see the versions that are currently being developed/used. -- Mad Pierrot ( talk) 18:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, redirect pages have been created for potential future releases of Ubuntu ( 10.04 10.10 11.04 11.10 12.04 12.10 13.04 13.10). I was about to do an RFD, but I figured I would bring it up here first. I think most, if not all, of these redirect pages should be deleted for now. With no official announcement from Canonical about releases after Karmic, it is very premature to have all these pages. Any information out there is pure speculation at this point. Ubuntu might not be actively developed within the next few years, unlikely but possible. It is equivalent to creating a redirect page for Windows 9+. Perhaps 10.04 could redirect to future releases or something, but the rest are in my opinion very good candidates for deletion. I should mention that I don't know how to group multiple pages into a single deletion discussion. [mad pierrot] [t c] 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Pidgin is 2.6.1 in Karmic publishing, so it should still be included, maybe have it italicized. 24.241.229.136 ( talk) 14:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This table has now been removed twice as unsourced and trivia. Before it is added back in please provide a ref for the numbers and explain why you think it is not trivia and is worthwhile adding to this article. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The version timeline has Windows 7's release date as roughly Jan-Feb 2010: whereas it was released on July 22, 2009 to PC builders or October 22, 2009 to the general public. Vista is shown correctly (using the general public availability), as are roughly Windows XP SP2 and SP3.
Apart from the Windows 7 correction can it be made clear also that for Windows (and possibly Mac, if applicable) that it is the general public release date that is used and not the RTM date too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.134.154 ( talk)
This table in the article includes version histories of some applications. Earlier in June User:Altonbr added the VLC media player to this table. As much as I like VLC, it has never been an application included on the Ubuntu ISO CD, although it has been available in the repositories. There are lots of other applications that are not on the Ubuntu ISO CD, but are in the repositories, like Epiphany, Avidemux, Gparted, etc. I can't see any reason to include VLC here. Does anyone think it should be retained here? - Ahunt ( talk) 11:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Should there be new columns for Unity and Software Center versions and corresponding numbers? I think that these two are more essential, discussed and controversial parts of the current Ubuntu os than are optional software such as GIMP, Pidgin or PiTiVi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.186.30 ( talk) 13:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I was just reading the whole page, and checking out the sources to read more. I noticed that the cite for 10.07 leads to nowhere (or actually, somrthing). I didn't know that there was going to be a 10.07, and when I Googled it, I couldn't find any places I found to be "reputable" enough. 71.236.158.14 ( talk) 09:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I was wondering about it. 71.236.158.14 ( talk) 07:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
So what happens after they get to "Zany Zebra" version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.177.99 ( talk) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I am delisting the GA nomination for this, because it is a list and thus not eligible, according to WP:WIAGA. Good luck at WP:FLC. Magic ♪piano 22:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
First off, this article pertains to Ubuntu Desktop releases, not other variants of the Ubuntu system. It is also not a new Ubuntu release, but rather a new interface for netbooks on top of Ubuntu Desktop version 10.04. The Ubuntu_(operating_system) article does not mention 10.07 and the Ubuntu_Netbook_Edition lists the release as 10.04. In addition when downloading the netbook version on the Ubuntu Website, the filename is ubuntu-10.04-netbook-i386.iso
-- 66.216.166.154 ( talk) 21:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
just so you know, 11.04 is considering Libre office instead of OpenOffice, "Banshee will become 11.04 default media player providing it overcomes disk space issues and Libre Office is also being considered as a replacement to Open Office. How do you feel about the changes?" source? 96.42.44.73 ( talk) 23:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The table should not be split into two columns for OpenOffice.org & Libre Office. One follows the schema of release of the other & conveniently replaces the other in the order of that schema and consequent release of Ubuntu. A "/" diving the two in the top of column should be sufficient. Gatmaster ( talk) 07:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This statement which is found on the main page:
Contradicts this statement:
Found in Kernel security and update policy for post-release trees
What kind of "18 month support" really means "3-4 month support for kernel bugs"? False and misleading. Case in point? Consider LP #579276 where a bug which causes KVM VM guest's networking to crash under load did not get accepted into Karmic. This is despite the SRU team begin supplied with the necessary patch on March 3, 2011. All they had to do was accept a patch and they did not. Clearly any claims about "18 months of support" are not supported by this evidence. 140.147.222.3 ( talk) 20:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on over when Ubuntu 8.04 desktop support expires. Having gone through reams of the usual totally disorganized Ubuntu documentation all I have found is the same information: April 2011, with no specific date given. As can be seen on that page, Canonical has done this before, sometimes they give an exact date, as in the case of Jaunty Jackalope (23 October 2010) and sometimes they don't, like with Feisty Fawn (just October 2008). In the absence of any firm date I think we have no choice but to go with the end of April for 8.04's end of life. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that it ended on 12th May 2011. I found this source: [ [1]]. Pcwiz11 ( talk) 12:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the caption for the 11.4 screenshot is noted as being from Alpha, but clicking on the link says it's a beta screenshot. Could someone verify and correct this inconsistancy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.157.124 ( talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's time that we split the ubuntu releases page into separate articles. Ubuntu061896 ( talk) 05:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
As per the official Oneiric Release Schedule on the Ubuntu Wiki, Ubuntu 11.10 will be released on October 13 and there has previously been an error in the opening lines of that section as far as that is concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenny Strawn ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Ubuntu 11.04.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ubuntu 11.04.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC) |
Should there be new columns for Unity and Software Center versions and corresponding numbers? I think that these two are more essential, discussed and controversial parts of the current Ubuntu os than are optional software such as GIMP, Pidgin or PiTiVi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.186.30 ( talk) 13:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
This is original research, pure and simple. It is the editor's personal interpretation of what the animal being used is referring to, as per " I went with honey badger because it is famous in Africa." No source says that this 5.10 is referring specifically to a honey badger, and no source was provided, as such it is unverified and original research. - Sudo Ghost 03:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You have as a reference on the very page u are "correcting". And for Honey Badger
Not from Africa? Canonical was founded in South Africa
SilverWolf7 ( talk) 04:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
SilverWolf7 ( talk) 16:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Honey Badger is behind us, we are now talking about you removing other names
(Considering how you handled
Wubi edit, I dont see you are contributing constructively. Why you want to fight?)
SilverWolf7 (
talk)
17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
-----------
And to finish this here is what founder have to
say:
...Balancing all of those options, I think we have just the right mix in our designated mascot for 12.04 LTS. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Precise Pangolin.
Now, I’ve recently spent a few hours tracking a pangolin through the Kalahari. I can vouch for their precision – there wasn’t an ant hill in the valley that he missed. Their scales are a wonder of detail and quite the fashion statement. I can also vouch for their toughness; pangolin’s regularly survive encounters with lions. All in all, a perfect fit. There’s no sassier character, and no more cheerful digger, anywhere in those desert plains. If you want a plucky partner, the pangolin’s your match. Let’s pack light for a wonderful adventure together. SilverWolf7 ( talk) 17:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ahunt
What consenus?
There is just one guy with Honey Badger problem. (And I reverted Honey Badger to Badger)
The other just entered at end saying that it is not named after animals. Mark Shuttleworth say it is.
All I did was adding small link so people can see what animal is mascot for distro. SilverWolf7 ( talk) 18:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks but:
SilverWolf7 ( talk) 18:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
But there is explanation why it is named that way. This have nothing with code. If you dont like my link place, lets work out another. SilverWolf7 ( talk) 19:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
No, we dont have a consensus. I see that other people had same idea, but you just deleted their edits. And even you Ahunt have mascot description/link. Up do this point there is not one good argument why you dont like explanation of (one of) Ubunutu Trademarks. SilverWolf7 ( talk) 18:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
As shown here there is a reason for any animal and their symbolism.
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2008-September/000481.html
SilverWolf7 ( talk) 20:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it is sad how boring this is. You have it from founder of Ubuntu project and still u continue, without giving any good reason. From link above, symbolism by
Mark Shuttleworth:
them is boot time. We want Ubuntu to boot as fast as possible - both in the standard case, and especially when it is being tailored to a specific device. The Jackalope is known for being so fast that it's extremely hard to catch, and breeds only when lightning flashes .Let's see if we can make booting or resuming Ubuntu blindingly quick.
Or is it a weblication - a desktop application that seamlessly integrates the web!" This hare has
legs - and horns - and we'll be exploring it in much more detail for
Jaunty.
SilverWolf7 (
talk)
20:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Is the Ubuntu Timeline ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Version_timeline) down? All Wikipedia generated timelines appear down for me, in all my browsers. Altonbr ( talk) 18:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I think from 12.10 onwards, the normal releases will be supported for full 2 years instead of just 18 months. I'm not sure if that is extended or standard support, though, and I also don't know how to change the timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.11.12 ( talk) 11:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I boldly deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Ubuntu_releases&diff=555077525&oldid=555076259 Does/did(?) anyone care about development issues/how many alphas were issued before release? WP:NOTCHANGELOG, but this isn't even that. I hesitate to throw out discussions on Wubi that didn't materialize. Not agressive enough? Comp.arch ( talk) 17:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't subsection Ubuntu 13.10 (Saucy Salamander) too quote-heavy? -- Mortense ( talk) 11:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
There are quite a large number of citations to OMGUbuntu.co.uk in this article. In fact there are 30 citations. In particular, the section about release 14.4 has 7 citations from OMG Ubuntu for just that one paragraph. Additionly there is a quote from the author of OMG Ubuntu in the Ubuntu 13.10 section. I have to question this source as it seems to be a blog written principally by just one author, working alone with no editorial oversight or control. It is exactly what WP:USERGENERATED says we shouldn't be relying on except is a few special cases. I don't think this article is a special case.
I notice in the history edit summaries that one user wrote "I think the Sneddon review should remina. It is a WP:RS and it is much more critical of the smart scopes than Ars Technica was." No it is not; OMG Ubuntu is one persons personal opinion. Before citing web pages, you need to click on the "about us" button and check just who you are citing.
Other dubious source in this article include:
Reliable alternative sources do exist. Ubuntu is notable enough to generate headlines in major publications. Where a better resource is available it should be used and the existing unreliable citations replaced with better sources.
Beyond the sources listed above, the article relies very heavily on primary sources e.g. ubuntu.org, markshuttleworth.com, and canonical.com. Note that WP:OR says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."
-- Rincewind42 ( talk) 09:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I really don't think that other publications have left the field at all. OMG Ubuntu is far form the biggest Ubuntu related site by any metric and many other dedicated Ubuntu fan sites exist as well as many Linux publications covering the topic as well as the general computing press and even frequently main stream press. Your claim that OMG Ubuntu is often the first to post news is irrelevant. Being first is not a metric of reliability. Including in Wikipedia quality sources not quick sources. Plus the access date for the references on this article are often weeks or months after the publication date, making freshness irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a news outlet. We are quite happy to wait for a press releases and reliable third party sources to be written and published rather that take the word of a blogger who tweeted while at a conference. Sneddons age is of significance. Experience is required to be a competent editor and to be knowledgeable on the topic at hand. The reason Jim Lynch might pass WP:SPS is that he has that that knowledge and experience—Sneddon does not as illustrated by that lack of other publications syndicating his work. -- Rincewind42 ( talk) 07:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Since the discussion IS here, I would like to hijack it a bit.. I've been wandering about the general issue (maybe should discuss elsewhere..). There are four cases:
Nr.1 is ideal and we presume those publishers do not do nr.2. For technical matters especially, let's say buisnessinsider.com or forbes.com might be right (or wrong). I would use them if correct, but would also like to at least edit out if wrong.
Nr.4 at least happens frequently in a typical forum, or random blog (but some are often ok).
Where does OMG Ubuntu happen to be? Most of the time at least.
Now also consider Bruce Schneier, very reliable (about security at least). Has a blog (nr. 3). Not even a journalist :) But top person in his field.
Now for a twist see: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/unbreakable_enc.html
Would you exclude his blog or that article? What about the journalistic (assuming, could have been the BBC) articles he references:
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-unbreakable-codes-nature.html
http://www.gizmag.com/human-biology-unbreakable-encryption/31504/
Would these article be ok, and those publications in general get a free pass? Shouldn't at least the truth (if uncontroversial) get a say? Back to the specific case of OMG Ubuntu, I see mostly obviously uncontroversial true info there, that anyone can check out, this is in (the User Interface) of Ubuntu. Why bother excluding those or ALL of the articles? This is not rocket science.. comp.arch ( talk) 16:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
{{Better source|reason=|date=April 2014}}
or remove it and add {{Citation needed|reason=your explanation here|date=April 2014}}
@ comp.arch Reliability is not based on a judgement of being correct, it is to do with the style and format of the publication. Two sources might say exactly the same thing, but one will more reliable than the other. For example: "Dolly the sheep, the first cloned animal died" coulde be backed up by several sources.
All the above tell the same story and all of them are correct, but which would you choose for the source of a Wikipedia artilce. I think it is clear that the Nature Magazine is the reliable source as defined at WP:RS where as the others are self published or user generated content as described at WP:SELFPUBLISH. By using the reliable source, Wikipedia inherits that reliability. By using unreliable sources, Wikipedia inherits a reputation (which it already has) of being unreliable.
Looking at our article, take one claim, for example the article says that in Ubuntu 11.10 "Mozilla Thunderbird has replaced the Evolution email client" we have several possible source:
All these sources say the same thing. The are all correct that Thunderbird is the default email app in 11.10. However, one is user generated content and two are self published blogs. That leaves us with Softpedia and ExtremeTech both of which are reliable sources as defined at WP:RS and also notable publications which have their own wikipedia pages. Why shouldn't that reference be changed to ExtremeTech.com. Rincewind42 ( talk) 02:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The following text has just been removed as no source was given:
Samsara 00:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
is the migration from the WHOLE base system from libc6 2.19 to 2.21. (Neither Trusty nor Utopic ever made such libc6 change; minor version number was always the same.) As most of you tech-savvy guys will know, libc6 is the one and all for Linux. If you break it, almost nothing works (except vi, granted (lol)). So this is another reason why eye-candy fanbois cannot perceive too much of the 14.10-to-15.04 change from the outside. -andy 2.242.42.124 ( talk) 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on
List of Ubuntu releases. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
12.04 continues to be supported for Advantage customers until 2019. I added this fact in the section for the release, but not sure how to add it to the table, since LTS support ended, but ESM continues. 88.193.200.225 ( talk) 13:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ubuntu_version_history&diff=next&oldid=390077148 92.227.230.108 ( talk) 22:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Please to keep adding file manger window on screenshots, so it would show some example of UI, rather than just a background picture. Elk Salmon ( talk) 13:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Ubuntu | Debian -version number 18.04 bionic buster / sid - 10 17.10 artful stretch / sid - 9 17.04 zesty stretch / sid 16.10 yakkety stretch / sid 16.04 xenial stretch / sid 15.10 wily jessie / sid - 8 15.04 vivid jessie / sid 14.10 utopic jessie / sid 14.04 trusty jessie / sid 13.10 saucy wheezy / sid - 7 13.04 raring wheezy / sid 12.10 quantal wheezy / sid 12.04 precise wheezy / sid 11.10 oneiric wheezy / sid 11.04 natty squeeze / sid - 6 10.10 maverick squeeze / sid 10.04 lucid squeeze / sid
please complete the listing... , thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.239.92 ( talk) 16:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Current article says 2028-04, the source doesn't mention that it's public or not.
But the Version timeline below shows that it's Extended Security Maintenance. Which for the other versions isn't counted about public updated.
This source doesn't show more than 5 years of support https://www.ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle And actually doesn't even show the info about the extended support to 2028 that Mark Shuttleworth announced. Which is strange.
So are we sure enough that current date for end of public support (2028-04) is wrong? Or is that simply a confusion? Tuxayo ( talk) 23:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
(Version timeline) Mis them. ( 195.35.231.195 ( talk) 18:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC))
Information about minor releases is generally missing and also what kind of policy Ubuntu follows. Tech201805 ( talk)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 |
This page isn't really about history, as it includes future releases. Maybe it should be just "Ubuntu Releases"?
Jayen Ashar ( talk) 23:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I took out the information about Jaunty, which contained the impossible statement that Jaunty will have Pidgin 2.6, which does not exist, among the list of software packages. This was the only one with a citation, and whatever the actual citation meant, it didn't mean what it said. The whole bit about Jaunty should be audited closely to make sure it is accurate. Do not just restore the deletion, check it. Papna ( talk) 06:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Is it ok to add a screenshot of the default desktop for jaunty now? I know all is subject to change, but it would give something more to the section for now. - Old Marcus ( talk) 12:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
(This proposition was made on Ubuntu talk page)
I've proposed to clean up table to look like this: Ubuntu Releases table mockup.
Current table has, in My opinion, way too much details (especially all those refs and dates converted into links).
(and yes, i know that 6.06 is still supported - it's only a mockup. :) ) KrzysztofKlimonda ( talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll second that. The color coded "supported/not support/etc" looks good. The only thing I would change is order. I'd have future released first and it would go back in history all the way to Warty Warthog.-- Larr¥ 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Some Ubuntu LTS versions keep the same name and number while undergoing significant kernel upgrades. For example, Precise Pangolin 12.04
used these kernel versions: 3.2, 3.5, 3.8, 3.11, 3.13. The
List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Table_of_versions doesn't currently reflect this fact.
This Ask Ubuntu answer does reflect that fact (e.g. 12.04 is listed as "3.2 or newer"), and the comments below it may be useful.
Open4D (
talk)
13:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but shouldn't the different versions have their own article? This works fine for Microsoft, with Windows XP and Vista for example. Quispiam ( talk) 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Whatever happened to this idea? This article does need a major cleanup, but I'm not sure how to do it. Perhaps articles could be written for each LTS release and a general re-organization for the article. [mad pierrot] [t c] 00:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I've started a merger discussion at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)#Merger proposal with list of releases page. I just don't think the differences between each version is great enough to merit this page, or merit a page for each release. [ mad pierrot ] 18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I read on Softpedia that Ubuntu 9.10 won't have a new theme. Softpedia quoted the information from Shuttleworth I believe. Is Softpedia a reliable source?
Can't find the article right now, but when I do I'll link it. -- Old Marcus ( talk) 07:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Link: Ubuntu 9.10 Alpha 2 Released -- Old Marcus ( talk) 07:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added citations to the expected packages section and removed the citation needed tag. The launchpad pages are a little hard to read, but you can see the versions that are currently being developed/used. -- Mad Pierrot ( talk) 18:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Recently, redirect pages have been created for potential future releases of Ubuntu ( 10.04 10.10 11.04 11.10 12.04 12.10 13.04 13.10). I was about to do an RFD, but I figured I would bring it up here first. I think most, if not all, of these redirect pages should be deleted for now. With no official announcement from Canonical about releases after Karmic, it is very premature to have all these pages. Any information out there is pure speculation at this point. Ubuntu might not be actively developed within the next few years, unlikely but possible. It is equivalent to creating a redirect page for Windows 9+. Perhaps 10.04 could redirect to future releases or something, but the rest are in my opinion very good candidates for deletion. I should mention that I don't know how to group multiple pages into a single deletion discussion. [mad pierrot] [t c] 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Pidgin is 2.6.1 in Karmic publishing, so it should still be included, maybe have it italicized. 24.241.229.136 ( talk) 14:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
This table has now been removed twice as unsourced and trivia. Before it is added back in please provide a ref for the numbers and explain why you think it is not trivia and is worthwhile adding to this article. - Ahunt ( talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The version timeline has Windows 7's release date as roughly Jan-Feb 2010: whereas it was released on July 22, 2009 to PC builders or October 22, 2009 to the general public. Vista is shown correctly (using the general public availability), as are roughly Windows XP SP2 and SP3.
Apart from the Windows 7 correction can it be made clear also that for Windows (and possibly Mac, if applicable) that it is the general public release date that is used and not the RTM date too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.134.154 ( talk)
This table in the article includes version histories of some applications. Earlier in June User:Altonbr added the VLC media player to this table. As much as I like VLC, it has never been an application included on the Ubuntu ISO CD, although it has been available in the repositories. There are lots of other applications that are not on the Ubuntu ISO CD, but are in the repositories, like Epiphany, Avidemux, Gparted, etc. I can't see any reason to include VLC here. Does anyone think it should be retained here? - Ahunt ( talk) 11:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Should there be new columns for Unity and Software Center versions and corresponding numbers? I think that these two are more essential, discussed and controversial parts of the current Ubuntu os than are optional software such as GIMP, Pidgin or PiTiVi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.186.30 ( talk) 13:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I was just reading the whole page, and checking out the sources to read more. I noticed that the cite for 10.07 leads to nowhere (or actually, somrthing). I didn't know that there was going to be a 10.07, and when I Googled it, I couldn't find any places I found to be "reputable" enough. 71.236.158.14 ( talk) 09:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I was wondering about it. 71.236.158.14 ( talk) 07:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
So what happens after they get to "Zany Zebra" version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.177.99 ( talk) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I am delisting the GA nomination for this, because it is a list and thus not eligible, according to WP:WIAGA. Good luck at WP:FLC. Magic ♪piano 22:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
First off, this article pertains to Ubuntu Desktop releases, not other variants of the Ubuntu system. It is also not a new Ubuntu release, but rather a new interface for netbooks on top of Ubuntu Desktop version 10.04. The Ubuntu_(operating_system) article does not mention 10.07 and the Ubuntu_Netbook_Edition lists the release as 10.04. In addition when downloading the netbook version on the Ubuntu Website, the filename is ubuntu-10.04-netbook-i386.iso
-- 66.216.166.154 ( talk) 21:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
just so you know, 11.04 is considering Libre office instead of OpenOffice, "Banshee will become 11.04 default media player providing it overcomes disk space issues and Libre Office is also being considered as a replacement to Open Office. How do you feel about the changes?" source? 96.42.44.73 ( talk) 23:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The table should not be split into two columns for OpenOffice.org & Libre Office. One follows the schema of release of the other & conveniently replaces the other in the order of that schema and consequent release of Ubuntu. A "/" diving the two in the top of column should be sufficient. Gatmaster ( talk) 07:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
This statement which is found on the main page:
Contradicts this statement:
Found in Kernel security and update policy for post-release trees
What kind of "18 month support" really means "3-4 month support for kernel bugs"? False and misleading. Case in point? Consider LP #579276 where a bug which causes KVM VM guest's networking to crash under load did not get accepted into Karmic. This is despite the SRU team begin supplied with the necessary patch on March 3, 2011. All they had to do was accept a patch and they did not. Clearly any claims about "18 months of support" are not supported by this evidence. 140.147.222.3 ( talk) 20:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on over when Ubuntu 8.04 desktop support expires. Having gone through reams of the usual totally disorganized Ubuntu documentation all I have found is the same information: April 2011, with no specific date given. As can be seen on that page, Canonical has done this before, sometimes they give an exact date, as in the case of Jaunty Jackalope (23 October 2010) and sometimes they don't, like with Feisty Fawn (just October 2008). In the absence of any firm date I think we have no choice but to go with the end of April for 8.04's end of life. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that it ended on 12th May 2011. I found this source: [ [1]]. Pcwiz11 ( talk) 12:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the caption for the 11.4 screenshot is noted as being from Alpha, but clicking on the link says it's a beta screenshot. Could someone verify and correct this inconsistancy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.157.124 ( talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's time that we split the ubuntu releases page into separate articles. Ubuntu061896 ( talk) 05:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
As per the official Oneiric Release Schedule on the Ubuntu Wiki, Ubuntu 11.10 will be released on October 13 and there has previously been an error in the opening lines of that section as far as that is concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenny Strawn ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Ubuntu 11.04.png, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ubuntu 11.04.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC) |
Should there be new columns for Unity and Software Center versions and corresponding numbers? I think that these two are more essential, discussed and controversial parts of the current Ubuntu os than are optional software such as GIMP, Pidgin or PiTiVi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.186.30 ( talk) 13:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
This is original research, pure and simple. It is the editor's personal interpretation of what the animal being used is referring to, as per " I went with honey badger because it is famous in Africa." No source says that this 5.10 is referring specifically to a honey badger, and no source was provided, as such it is unverified and original research. - Sudo Ghost 03:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You have as a reference on the very page u are "correcting". And for Honey Badger
Not from Africa? Canonical was founded in South Africa
SilverWolf7 ( talk) 04:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
SilverWolf7 ( talk) 16:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Honey Badger is behind us, we are now talking about you removing other names
(Considering how you handled
Wubi edit, I dont see you are contributing constructively. Why you want to fight?)
SilverWolf7 (
talk)
17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
-----------
And to finish this here is what founder have to
say:
...Balancing all of those options, I think we have just the right mix in our designated mascot for 12.04 LTS. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Precise Pangolin.
Now, I’ve recently spent a few hours tracking a pangolin through the Kalahari. I can vouch for their precision – there wasn’t an ant hill in the valley that he missed. Their scales are a wonder of detail and quite the fashion statement. I can also vouch for their toughness; pangolin’s regularly survive encounters with lions. All in all, a perfect fit. There’s no sassier character, and no more cheerful digger, anywhere in those desert plains. If you want a plucky partner, the pangolin’s your match. Let’s pack light for a wonderful adventure together. SilverWolf7 ( talk) 17:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ahunt
What consenus?
There is just one guy with Honey Badger problem. (And I reverted Honey Badger to Badger)
The other just entered at end saying that it is not named after animals. Mark Shuttleworth say it is.
All I did was adding small link so people can see what animal is mascot for distro. SilverWolf7 ( talk) 18:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks but:
SilverWolf7 ( talk) 18:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
But there is explanation why it is named that way. This have nothing with code. If you dont like my link place, lets work out another. SilverWolf7 ( talk) 19:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
No, we dont have a consensus. I see that other people had same idea, but you just deleted their edits. And even you Ahunt have mascot description/link. Up do this point there is not one good argument why you dont like explanation of (one of) Ubunutu Trademarks. SilverWolf7 ( talk) 18:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
As shown here there is a reason for any animal and their symbolism.
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2008-September/000481.html
SilverWolf7 ( talk) 20:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it is sad how boring this is. You have it from founder of Ubuntu project and still u continue, without giving any good reason. From link above, symbolism by
Mark Shuttleworth:
them is boot time. We want Ubuntu to boot as fast as possible - both in the standard case, and especially when it is being tailored to a specific device. The Jackalope is known for being so fast that it's extremely hard to catch, and breeds only when lightning flashes .Let's see if we can make booting or resuming Ubuntu blindingly quick.
Or is it a weblication - a desktop application that seamlessly integrates the web!" This hare has
legs - and horns - and we'll be exploring it in much more detail for
Jaunty.
SilverWolf7 (
talk)
20:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Is the Ubuntu Timeline ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Version_timeline) down? All Wikipedia generated timelines appear down for me, in all my browsers. Altonbr ( talk) 18:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I think from 12.10 onwards, the normal releases will be supported for full 2 years instead of just 18 months. I'm not sure if that is extended or standard support, though, and I also don't know how to change the timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.11.12 ( talk) 11:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I boldly deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_Ubuntu_releases&diff=555077525&oldid=555076259 Does/did(?) anyone care about development issues/how many alphas were issued before release? WP:NOTCHANGELOG, but this isn't even that. I hesitate to throw out discussions on Wubi that didn't materialize. Not agressive enough? Comp.arch ( talk) 17:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't subsection Ubuntu 13.10 (Saucy Salamander) too quote-heavy? -- Mortense ( talk) 11:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
There are quite a large number of citations to OMGUbuntu.co.uk in this article. In fact there are 30 citations. In particular, the section about release 14.4 has 7 citations from OMG Ubuntu for just that one paragraph. Additionly there is a quote from the author of OMG Ubuntu in the Ubuntu 13.10 section. I have to question this source as it seems to be a blog written principally by just one author, working alone with no editorial oversight or control. It is exactly what WP:USERGENERATED says we shouldn't be relying on except is a few special cases. I don't think this article is a special case.
I notice in the history edit summaries that one user wrote "I think the Sneddon review should remina. It is a WP:RS and it is much more critical of the smart scopes than Ars Technica was." No it is not; OMG Ubuntu is one persons personal opinion. Before citing web pages, you need to click on the "about us" button and check just who you are citing.
Other dubious source in this article include:
Reliable alternative sources do exist. Ubuntu is notable enough to generate headlines in major publications. Where a better resource is available it should be used and the existing unreliable citations replaced with better sources.
Beyond the sources listed above, the article relies very heavily on primary sources e.g. ubuntu.org, markshuttleworth.com, and canonical.com. Note that WP:OR says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."
-- Rincewind42 ( talk) 09:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I really don't think that other publications have left the field at all. OMG Ubuntu is far form the biggest Ubuntu related site by any metric and many other dedicated Ubuntu fan sites exist as well as many Linux publications covering the topic as well as the general computing press and even frequently main stream press. Your claim that OMG Ubuntu is often the first to post news is irrelevant. Being first is not a metric of reliability. Including in Wikipedia quality sources not quick sources. Plus the access date for the references on this article are often weeks or months after the publication date, making freshness irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a news outlet. We are quite happy to wait for a press releases and reliable third party sources to be written and published rather that take the word of a blogger who tweeted while at a conference. Sneddons age is of significance. Experience is required to be a competent editor and to be knowledgeable on the topic at hand. The reason Jim Lynch might pass WP:SPS is that he has that that knowledge and experience—Sneddon does not as illustrated by that lack of other publications syndicating his work. -- Rincewind42 ( talk) 07:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Since the discussion IS here, I would like to hijack it a bit.. I've been wandering about the general issue (maybe should discuss elsewhere..). There are four cases:
Nr.1 is ideal and we presume those publishers do not do nr.2. For technical matters especially, let's say buisnessinsider.com or forbes.com might be right (or wrong). I would use them if correct, but would also like to at least edit out if wrong.
Nr.4 at least happens frequently in a typical forum, or random blog (but some are often ok).
Where does OMG Ubuntu happen to be? Most of the time at least.
Now also consider Bruce Schneier, very reliable (about security at least). Has a blog (nr. 3). Not even a journalist :) But top person in his field.
Now for a twist see: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/unbreakable_enc.html
Would you exclude his blog or that article? What about the journalistic (assuming, could have been the BBC) articles he references:
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-unbreakable-codes-nature.html
http://www.gizmag.com/human-biology-unbreakable-encryption/31504/
Would these article be ok, and those publications in general get a free pass? Shouldn't at least the truth (if uncontroversial) get a say? Back to the specific case of OMG Ubuntu, I see mostly obviously uncontroversial true info there, that anyone can check out, this is in (the User Interface) of Ubuntu. Why bother excluding those or ALL of the articles? This is not rocket science.. comp.arch ( talk) 16:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
{{Better source|reason=|date=April 2014}}
or remove it and add {{Citation needed|reason=your explanation here|date=April 2014}}
@ comp.arch Reliability is not based on a judgement of being correct, it is to do with the style and format of the publication. Two sources might say exactly the same thing, but one will more reliable than the other. For example: "Dolly the sheep, the first cloned animal died" coulde be backed up by several sources.
All the above tell the same story and all of them are correct, but which would you choose for the source of a Wikipedia artilce. I think it is clear that the Nature Magazine is the reliable source as defined at WP:RS where as the others are self published or user generated content as described at WP:SELFPUBLISH. By using the reliable source, Wikipedia inherits that reliability. By using unreliable sources, Wikipedia inherits a reputation (which it already has) of being unreliable.
Looking at our article, take one claim, for example the article says that in Ubuntu 11.10 "Mozilla Thunderbird has replaced the Evolution email client" we have several possible source:
All these sources say the same thing. The are all correct that Thunderbird is the default email app in 11.10. However, one is user generated content and two are self published blogs. That leaves us with Softpedia and ExtremeTech both of which are reliable sources as defined at WP:RS and also notable publications which have their own wikipedia pages. Why shouldn't that reference be changed to ExtremeTech.com. Rincewind42 ( talk) 02:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The following text has just been removed as no source was given:
Samsara 00:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
is the migration from the WHOLE base system from libc6 2.19 to 2.21. (Neither Trusty nor Utopic ever made such libc6 change; minor version number was always the same.) As most of you tech-savvy guys will know, libc6 is the one and all for Linux. If you break it, almost nothing works (except vi, granted (lol)). So this is another reason why eye-candy fanbois cannot perceive too much of the 14.10-to-15.04 change from the outside. -andy 2.242.42.124 ( talk) 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on
List of Ubuntu releases. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
12.04 continues to be supported for Advantage customers until 2019. I added this fact in the section for the release, but not sure how to add it to the table, since LTS support ended, but ESM continues. 88.193.200.225 ( talk) 13:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ubuntu_version_history&diff=next&oldid=390077148 92.227.230.108 ( talk) 22:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Please to keep adding file manger window on screenshots, so it would show some example of UI, rather than just a background picture. Elk Salmon ( talk) 13:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Ubuntu | Debian -version number 18.04 bionic buster / sid - 10 17.10 artful stretch / sid - 9 17.04 zesty stretch / sid 16.10 yakkety stretch / sid 16.04 xenial stretch / sid 15.10 wily jessie / sid - 8 15.04 vivid jessie / sid 14.10 utopic jessie / sid 14.04 trusty jessie / sid 13.10 saucy wheezy / sid - 7 13.04 raring wheezy / sid 12.10 quantal wheezy / sid 12.04 precise wheezy / sid 11.10 oneiric wheezy / sid 11.04 natty squeeze / sid - 6 10.10 maverick squeeze / sid 10.04 lucid squeeze / sid
please complete the listing... , thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.239.92 ( talk) 16:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Current article says 2028-04, the source doesn't mention that it's public or not.
But the Version timeline below shows that it's Extended Security Maintenance. Which for the other versions isn't counted about public updated.
This source doesn't show more than 5 years of support https://www.ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle And actually doesn't even show the info about the extended support to 2028 that Mark Shuttleworth announced. Which is strange.
So are we sure enough that current date for end of public support (2028-04) is wrong? Or is that simply a confusion? Tuxayo ( talk) 23:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
(Version timeline) Mis them. ( 195.35.231.195 ( talk) 18:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC))
Information about minor releases is generally missing and also what kind of policy Ubuntu follows. Tech201805 ( talk)