Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 11

Title proposal
I propose that Ubuntu (operating system) be re-titled Ubuntu (Linux distribution). The current title, while satisfactory, gives the uninformed reader the notion that Ubuntu is an operating system all its own, rather than a Linux variant. Changing the title would better reflects this. 71.101.225.144 (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please post at the bottom of talk pages. If you had done so, you would find the topic under which this has been debated to death. Again. --Nigelj (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I had read the topic already. I'm not proposing a change to any of the article's content, merely the title. I'd appreciate it if you assumed some good faith. 64.56.87.4 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Ubuntu a Linux Distribution or a Debian Distribution? I've always been confused on that point. - Team4Technologies (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Think like a family tree, with Linux (or GNU/Linux) at the top, then Debian under that, with others, then Ubuntu under Debian (again with others alongside it) and maybe Mint, etc under Ubuntu. --Nigelj (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Debian is a Linux distribution. Ubuntu is another Linux distribution, based on Debian. Questions like these are the reason the title should be changed. 71.101.225.144 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but any of these things, once installed on your laptop, becomes the operating system for it. That's why the title is correct as it is. How they got to become usable operating systems may be marginally interesting to the everyday reader of WP (or the everyday user of Linux), but it does not detract from the thing actually being an OS for a computer. Each is, once running, an operating system, in the same sense as MS Windows and Apple OS. --Nigelj (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I'm not trying to say that Ubuntu isn't an operating system, it clearly is. But the title Ubuntu (operating system), while technically correct, indicates an autonomy that Ubuntu doesn't have, and doesn't reflect that Ubuntu is just one of many distros. We don't talk about Windows, OS X, and Ubuntu. We talk about Windows, OS X, and Linux. Ubuntu (Linux distribution) still indicates that Ubuntu is an OS by including "Linux" in the title. 71.101.225.144 (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of people want to try to get all their favourite quotes and phrases into the article WP:LEDE, without bothering to read the rest of the article. You seem to want to get yours into the title! The words Debian, Linux and distribution already appear, linked, in the first line of the lede; only those of the most microscopic media attention span will miss them. The only phrase that comes higher up is "Ubuntu is a computer operating system", which you say it clearly is. In my small business, FWIW, we do talk about Windows, OS X, and Ubuntu, because the whole thing is run on Ubuntu-based computers, but we sometimes have to consider others. --Nigelj (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a proposal for a "quote or phrase", but a title change, nothing more. The lede sums Ubuntu up very well, but that doesn't mean the title shouldn't be clarified. If the article on the American Civil War were perfectly written, but titled War of Northern Aggression, it would still be appropriate to review and change the title, regardless of the article's flawless content. Now obviously there are big differences between the Civil War and Ubuntu, but the idea is the same: Assessment and clarification of the title, independent of the article's content itself 71.101.225.144 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Operating system" is used as the standard disambiguator on a number of other articles. This article is simply following that convention. See Category:Linux distributions where you can see that it is also used for CHAOS (operating system), Fedora (operating system), Gibraltar (operating system), gOS (operating system), Incognito (operating system) and more. Changing Ubuntu to idiosyncratically use a different disambiguator is not gonna fly. Yworo (talk) 12:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Yworo. --Falcorian (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well. I withdraw my proposal. 71.101.225.144 (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New branding
While reading in the Community Cafe area on UbuntuForums Technoviking made a thread announcing that Ubuntu will be re-branded.

Just to let you know :-)  The Toxic Mite  't 20:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * EDIT:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvinps (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * unfortunately the logos are not in SVG format, so I hope somebody could draw one from scratch. Should the desktop screenshot be replaced with the one given? --haha169 (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * General consensus for software screenshots seems to be that they should be of the most recent stable release. So no, leave at 9.10 for now. -- simxp (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial SVG for new logo (bitmap-traced using inkscape): http://frendhi.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/fall-in-love-in-new-ubuntu-logo/ http://frendhi.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/blackeubuntulogo.png http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4285847/newubuntulogo.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.95.100 (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
In English, I most commonly hear Ubuntu pronounced either /ʊˈbʊntu/, /uˈbuntu/, or /uˈbʌntu/, rather than /ʊˈbʊntʊ/, which is not actually phonetic in English because of the final, lax vowel. I know none of these are how it's originally pronounced in Bantu languages, but in terms of English pronunciation I think it should be changed. Quantumelfmage (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

References in popular culture
Ubuntu is pretty clearly referenced in the anime adaptation of Durarara!! episode 11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.49.10 (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * +1 193.144.63.50 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The two pronunciations given at the start of the article are inconsistent: is the 2nd vowel long (as in the IPA transription) or short (as in the informal pronuciation guide)? --19:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfold (talk • contribs)
 * Think I've nailed it now. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
The current IPA pronunciation uses the same vowel sound for all three U's in Ubuntu (ie, "oo-boon-too"). It seems to me like "oo-bun-too" is the more popular form, but I've seen both. How should we handle this? Scott Ritchie (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "oo-boon-too" is correct, "oo-bun-too" is more popular (but that's my OR). I think we should handle it as is, using the official one. --Falcorian (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In "System > About Ubuntu > About the Name", it is stated that the pronunciation is "oo-BOON-too" Altonbr (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, "oo-boon-too" is the official pronunciation, which is what must be used. darkwind6000 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2009 (PST).
 * Haha, it is so funny to see that there is a thread talking about Ubuntu's pronunciation in here, considering that I JUST added the correct pronunciation to the article. :P
 * But yes, "Ooh (or "oo")-boon-too" is the correct pronunctiation, you can even hear the former president of Africa (where the word "Ubuntu" derives from) pronounce it "Ooh-boon-too". ;) TheSameGuy (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Since when is Africa a country? :P ff m  04:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right, what I meant was former president of South Africa. :P On a side note, someone has tagged the pronunciation of Ubuntu with a "Citation needed". Problem though is that a citation is NOT needed... that's how it is pronounced..., so how should I go about this? TheSameGuy (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.ubuntu.com/aboutus/faq says 'Ubuntu, an African word from Zulu and Xhosa, is pronounced "oo-BOON-too".' ChaosData (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I've even heard Canonical managers pronounce it differently. Among the developers at the summit, "oo-bun-too" is most popular, followed by the official "oo-boon-too", and I've even heard "you-bun-too".  I'd call them all correct. Scott Ritchie (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for updated picture
Can we have a new picture for Ubuntu 10.04? The one we have is from the beta and frankly it looks like a mess compared to the pictures from the previous releases. --112.203.100.68 (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Today it's this article, tomorrow it's all others on wiki 'x Days ago'
I realise that it must be some kind of calculation wiki has set on its own but any chance someone decent on here could pass a message upstairs so that info boxes when showing release dtaes and how long its been could actually say '1 day ago' instead of saying the very incorrect '1 days ago'

More to the point, why on Earth given the fact wiki is all about the greater good of documentation has it not been corrected before?!

...I thank you


 * You can take your complaint directly to the source: Template:Start date and age. --Falcorian (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems this bug has a section of the talk page, I have relayed your complaint. Template talk:Start date and age --Falcorian (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

MB/MiB
For you, User:Walter Görlitz:. All the memory numbers are specified in MiB and the hard drive ones are in generic GB, therefore I stand by my stance of using IEC prefix and getting rid of the byte count. As for the hard drive one 5×1000³ bytes gives a false sense of accuracy - will a fresh install really be exactly 5×1000³ bytes? Removing the ambiguity is nice but when the figure itself isn't exactly precise, the ambiguity doesn't make any difference at all. And please please do not undo other people's edit when you disagree with parts of their edit. --antilivedT 05:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hyperbole. You wrote "all". I quote:
 * Ubuntu Desktop Edition
 * 1 Gb of system memory (RAM)
 * 15 GB of hard-drive space (although this can be split onto 2 drives, a 5Gb / and a 10Gb /home fairly easily)
 * You should have written most.
 * The guideline also requires you to fix the amounts to indicate the calculation. I'll wait while you fix it. I showed you how. I don't mind the change, even though it will confuse new users, but it must be done correctly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I said all because that one is blatantly wrong - 1Gb means 1 gigabits, and good luck running Ubuntu on 128MiB of RAM. The memory figures that were quoted in the table are all specified in MiB. The guideline doesn't require me to do anything - it is, after all, a guideline. Try ignore it for a second and ask why should "(512×1024² bytes)" be added? Is a reader more likely to know how much 512×1024² bytes is more than 512MiB, which looks like MB and they can click on the MiB to read exactly what it is? Is the ambiguity between MiB and MB, the whole point of specifying exactly how many bytes it is, big enough to warrant that addition when you can only get RAM in base-2 quantities anyway? Is it worth the confusion? Don't apply guidelines just because they exist, ask and understand the rationale behind them and see if they are applicable in this situation. --antilivedT 06:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to the change from GB to GiB. I am opposed to your use of hyperbole. However, that's not the issue. The issue is that you have not formatted the new value correctly as per WP:COMPUNITS. If you don't want to follow guidelines, please don't edit. The change will be reverted if I have to do it because I believe that more people are familiar with GB than GiB. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh... I never said change GB to GiB? I only changed the MB to MiB as that's what Ubuntu uses, and that's in accordance with the guideline. Do the figures need disambiguation? If not isn't the whole section on disambiguation practice irrelevant? You come off as very hostile and does not assume good faith with your remark "If you don't want to follow guidelines, please don't edit." - it even says on the top of WP:MOS to "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions.". Are my questions unreasonable? Am I not using my common sense? Am I not trying to have an open discussion? --antilivedT 05:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm coming off as hostile. You're coming off as arrogant. Are we even. I don't want to get into an edit war but I do want to follow the guideline. Please make the change. It's the only way I can guarantee you won't undo my change if I apply it. If I was truly hostile and wasn't assuming good faith, I would have reverted and applied what I think the standard is. I understand that you are making good faith edits and want the correct information in the article. I just want the guideline followed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just now saw your request for clarification on talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Thanks for seeking that clarification. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ubuntu calendar
Ubuntu calendar is listed for deletion. If there are reliable sources about this controversy, they might support this article being kept, or would support a mention in this article about the operating system. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Updating the Variants section
The Variants section of the article seems out of date. The official page about Ubuntu derivatives has been updated. Now it features the concept of "officially recognized", which is not the same as officially supported. Some of the officially recognized derivatives are actually fully supported by Canonical, while others are not. For instance, Ubuntu Studio depends on some packages from universe which are only supported by the community. I do not understand the details well enough. If you do, please update the article. Also, please explain the distinction between being officially supported, officially recognized and sponsored by Canonical. — Alexander Konovalenko (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tried to update the section. Please, have a look and comment. --Rprpr (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone put a reference to Xubuntu not being lightweight by referring to an paid-wall article about Lubuntu in Linux Mag. Can't it just be left at "Xubuntu is a variant using the XFCE environment"?  It's already a bit of a fan fight between Xubuntu and Lubuntu on the Ubuntu Forums with users jumping to compare/contrast the two variants, and I'm not sure it's worthy of edit war material here on the 'Pedia.  Folks campaign enough as it is...  I suggest the King Solomon approach and mention as little as possible: Xubuntu is recognized by Canonical, right now Lubuntu is not.  (Not a statement of quality, just the current state of things). It uses XFCE.  Stop, done.  Thoughts?   216.117.192.91 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the reference to the Linux Magazine article as it requires registration. Also, mentioned Lubuntu. --Rprpr (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Releases Section Includes Versions That Don't Exist
The Releases section includes versions 10.10 and 11.04. The value of a software's Releases section on Wikipedia for me is to be able to get a clear idea of what the current version is. I don't think there's any place in an encyclopaedia for versions that don't actually exist. Even more ridiculous is having a release date, as there is no way to be sure that Ubuntu will actually release on this specific date way in the future, despite Canonical intending to. Having future releases in the Releases section is conflicting with the intention of this strategy to list releases that have happened and so looks like an alternative version of Ubuntu's own web site. I just removed the 11.04 release but it was reverted by Snori saying just "it's fine I think...". Lopifalko (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is the guideline. It states:
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses.
 * So while you may be looking for what exists already, others are looking for what is known to be happening. Someone may look at this article prior to installing. If they wanted the "latest and greatest" version without going to nightly builds or betas, they may want to wait until an upcoming release has been delivered. Personally I would stick with the LTS versions. I will be restoring if it hasn't already been done since it seems consensus is to keep unreleased versions. Perhaps we could indicate more clearly which versions are unreleased to avoid confusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You make some good points, thanks. I agree it would improve the article to indicate which are upcoming releasesLopifalko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC).

Pronunciation
There is no source given for the /uːˈbʌnˌtuː/ pronunciation. One of the sources given is a youtube video, which I do not think qualifies as an 'encyclopaedic' source for pronunciation. 138.25.11.181 (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing external links -- Ubuntu (operating system)
Please clarify your motivation for removing external links from Ubuntu (operating system).

"Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic." per the guidelines.

Both references you have removed meet this criteria and violate none of the guidelines. Further,the links have been there for years. Please justify your actions.Perspectoff (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I read WP:ELNO, the one is a "fansite" and the other is a wiki, although possibly not open. Both are covered by the policies which I will reproduce here.
 * Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
 * Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
 * Do you have proof to the contrary? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Ubuntuguide.org is hosted at a University and part of the Linux Center there. It is not a fansite, personal web site or blog. There are hundreds of registered editors. It predates almost all help manuals for Ubuntu (in existence since December 2005) and has been extremely stable. It is one of the most referenced sources of information on Ubuntu worldwide. Ubuntu Forums is the official forums for Ubuntu (owned by Canonical) and is recognized by the Ubuntu team itself as the primary source for ongoing issues to be solved by the community (i.e. support site). It is also not a fansite, personal web site, or blog. There are thousands of registered contributors. It has also been in existence for years and is probably the most referenced website for Ubuntu by volume. Both links have always been part of the Ubuntu article (for years), which a priori indicates their stability. Perspectoff (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hundreds of editors. Sounds like an open wiki. The forum is the fan site. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Those (hundreds of editors and the longterm stability) qualifies as the exception to the rule. You posted the quotation. Didn't you read it? Wikipedia itself, BTW, is an open wiki with multiple editors and stability. Your definition would remove references to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. --Perspectoff (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I read it. I don't have access to the list of users but i can check the change history and see if your claim of stability can be verified unless you'd like to do so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * May have hundreds of "users" but very few editors. From what I see http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/User:Perspectoff is the majority editor. Oh. That's you. http://ubuntuguide.org/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&limit=500 shows that few edit have happened. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes you do. Anyone does. You could even see the list of users on Wikipedia, if you were to try. Mediawiki is very user-friendly software. Yes, I provide editorial supervision there (for the English version, anyway. There are versions in multiple languages). There are also lot of vandals who repeatedly change the wiki and make nonsense edits, or place personal opinion on the wiki. I use a bot program there to revert vandalism there (or are you unfamiliar with wiki bot software as well?). But I don't make the contributions -- that is done by editors worldwide. I am only an occasional administrative editor, to prevent nonsense edits, edit wars, and inconsistent edits. The guide is pretty stable and doesn't require extensive repetitive edits because of this supervision (including extyensive spam and vandalism filtering). So, you've made this a referendum on the quality and nature of Ubuntuguide.org, for some reason? Perspectoff (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. How have I made this a personal attack? I merely noted that there are not many editors and that you are one of the majority editors. That goes against the "a substantial number of editors" clause. However you made another direct attack on my intelligence by suggesting that I don't know what a bot is. However, I will say that on Wikipedia, mot bots have their own accounts not those of their creator. But back to the issue at hand: I don't see how this wiki qualifies to be exempt from the restriction. Perhaps you can help give some guidance in this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of your recent additions I understand your point better, but it's not a "referendum on the quality and nature of Ubuntuguide.org". It's an empirical undertaking to determine if it does or does not merit inclusion in this Wikipedia article based on the guidelines presented at WP:EL, and specifically WP:ELNO. If you insist on taking it personally, I'm sorry, I can't help with that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding those two sites back to the article as was done here and here. It is going against the rules and is not particularly civil. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, dude, I've reviewed your history of edits and complaints about them and it appears you inspire arguments no matter what you edit, on every topic. You engage regularly in edit warring on multiple topics and that is, as you pint out, against the rules. You have put this into the discussion here, and you must allow time for the discussion to occur before you impose your own personal viewpoint. You are making changes to something that has stood for a long time based on your own personal interpretation of "the rules" (as you appear to do repeatedly on multiple topics) and then accuse others of being "incivil." This appears to be your modus operandi on Wikipedia. Why don't you give a chance for someone else to weigh in, rather than childishly insisting on your own viewpoint?


 * Okay, I'll weigh in. WP:EL specifically excludes linking to forums. It's right out. Yworo (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ad hominem attacks aside, the links don't fly at all in light of WP:ELNO, and those guidelines are not my personal opinion. Regardless of how long they've stood in this or any other article, they don't meet the guidelines Wikipedians have set-out. If you want to ask for a ruling on it, go ahead, but don't comment on the editors. There are warnings templates for that sort of misbehaviour. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Perspectoff is now trying to circumvent the WP:EL and specifically WP:ELNO rules by adding them to a modified section. Reverted twice but I do not intend to start edit war over this, but I'm sure other have strong feelings about it as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, right. You asked a buddy/sockpuppet (Cindamuse) to continue your edit war for you. You seem to have a problem with these links, no matter where they are. You have managed to erase all the external links, so the links (two of which are to official Ubuntu websites, by the way), were moved to the text where they have no chance of violating your WP:ELNO guidelines. Now you are merely censoring information -- about very notable stuff. You are removing sections about community support for Ubuntu, which is a major topic of discussion regarding this operating system. Clearly you are purely interested in censoring information that has been part of this article for years (at least since November 2008). These are not spam links, especially since two of the websites are official parts of the Ubuntu organisation. Cindamuses' immediate 3rd revision after your two revisions smacks of sockpuppetry. Exactly what is your problem? Perspectoff (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I do have a problem with you advertising your web sites. It's not censorship at all. Please comment on the content, not the editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * These are not my websites. I am merely a contributing editor to the official Ubuntu community website, a contributing editor to Ubuntuguide (which is run by the Linux Centre of University of Latvia -- I have no role in it), and a contributor to Ubuntu Forums, which is run by Canonical, the sponsor of Ubuntu. There are thousands of contributors like me on these sites. What is your problem, dude? Perspectoff (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As Perspectoff appears to be a long term contributor to this article I will give the benefit of the doubt to Perspectoff's preferred version of the article in the absence of other long term contributors objecting to the inclusion of reference to the debated sites. Lambanog (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to caution against providing rationale based on the contributions and history of various editors. Do not focus on editors, but rather, address issues based on policy and guidelines. Accordingly, User:Walter Görlitz is correct in his assessment that the external links added to the prose are in violation of WP:ELNO. User:Perspectoff insists on the inclusion of links to websites of which s/he is a member or affiliate. The link additions to blogs, forums, wikis, and other self-published content is highly inappropriate in any case. Cindamuse (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see how the addition of said sites makes the article worse and I can see a case made for their inclusion. Language surrounding guidelines and policy deliberately leaves room for editorial judgment and common sense, therefore I have looked at other criteria. Consensus will determine if the reference or links to the disputed sites stay or are removed.  I have stated where I stand on this argument.  Others are free to do the same. Furthermore commenting in an edit summary that a previous edit is vandalism when if there are grounds as in this case to assume a good faith content dispute is much more incendiary and should be avoided. Lambanog (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus has already been made in the applicable content guidelines found at WP:ELNO. Continued disregard of these guidelines constitutes vandalism. You may not personally recognize this violation, however, the community as a whole has. Accordingly, consensus of the community has provided clarification in writing and has clearly stated that links to blogs, forums, wikis, and other self-published content is inappropriate. Cindamuse (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus has not been established in this case and your characterization of it as vandalism is premature and unwarranted. Lambanog (talk) 08:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus has been established in relationship to the links being in violation to WP:ELNO. It's not clear whether converting the links to prose and including them as proposed "help" has not been. Feel free to discuss why you think it doesn't violate WP:ELNO. Please do so below the remainder of this discussion since inserting it here is making it difficult to follow the thread. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't comment on the editor. The web sites, according to my understanding of WP:ELNO, are both contrary to the policy. I have tried to explain this. Other editors have tried to as well. I'm sorry if we haven't done a good enough job of that for you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You made your arguments above, and I don't agree with them. Don't use the royal "we". Other editors have only weighed in on Ubuntu Forums in regards to WP:EL (re: forums). I do not own, maintain, or represent any of these websites except as a contributor. There is a lot of terribly trivial information in this article that you haven't bother to censor (and don't get me started on the number of articles about meaningless cartoons on Wikipedia). So when you try to censor information about things that are important to the Ubuntu community that belongs in an encyclopedia article, it makes me wonder about your motivation. Perspectoff (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please comment on the content, not the editors. There is no censorship only maintaining policies. Other editors weighed-in on the WP:ELNO issue. The recent edits appear to be a way to circumvent that policy. That is my position. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Could this dispute be solved by creating an article on Ubuntuguide.org? There is an article on WikiMapia, which is a wiki, and so I guess that creating an article on Ubuntuguide.org does not violate any Wikipedia policy. Instead of making reference to Ubuntuguide.org you can then reference Ubuntuguide.org in the context of describing Ubuntu community wikis. --Rprpr (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent suggestion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The site has to meet Notability (organizations and companies). There are editors who watch newly created pages who are ready to challenge the creation of any page if it doesn't meet the guidelines. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't Notability (web) be the appropriate notability requirement for this? Yworo (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Either would be valid, but Notability (web) is probably the better choice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The links in question can't qualify as "official" links under WP:EL as neither the Guide nor the forums are controlled by the subject (or Canonical) See . I can see with an open source O/S, the forums serve a very different function than say a fan forum site for Russell Crowe. Here members of the forum include linux developers who are actually helping to write and refine the O/S software itself. There doesn't seem to be the same disconnect as what  was contemplated under the wikipedia guidelines for pure discussion groups where contributors only comment about the topic.  WP:EL does suggest, "Links to websites that are not considered official websites may still be justifiable under other sections of this guideline...." Under  Links to consider # 3 : "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations". Would there be objections to including the links page Ubuntu.com uses to summarize community support as a sole external link  or some similar page? Suggested as a compromise less labor intensive than a new article. Eudemis (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is, the WP:EL section, the "consensus" of which appears to be only Gorlitz and his buddy (or sockpuppet) Cindamuse, refers to the external link section only. I rewrote the links to be references, and included a new section on community support. Gorlitz/Cindamuse removed those references, as well. The WP:EL rules don't apply to references -- many, if not most, references are to external links. No, Gorlitz/Cindamuse is being unnecessarily aggressive. Perspectoff (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome back. I am not friends with Cindamuse. To the best of my knowledge, prior to her involvement here, I only edited three other articles with her. She is a self-proclaimed recent edit monitor. I have a long list of articles I watch for vandalism. That is our only connection. We are not the same user.
 * As for consensus, you're mistaken. Several other editors have weighed-in both here and in other locations. In fact the best suggestion is not to have the sites linked directly. Create articles for the two you think are valid and link to those articles, if they survive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am also against the links. One thing you need to learn is that on Wikipedia, if you are a minority of one on a position, it takes only two editors to prevent the article from changing against consensus. When there are three or more, you can't possibly change the article except by good arguments based on Wikipedia policy or you will simply end up blocked for edit warring. In such a case, it's better to find other ways to improve Wikipedia. Surely there are plenty of other improvements you could be making. Why beat a dead horse? Yworo (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll tell you why, exactly. I have been one of a few national representatives for open source software in my profession (a multi-trillion dollar industry). I am constantly asked where new Ubuntu users can find community support. I routinely have directed them to several places, including Ubuntu Forums and Ubuntuguide.org, as well as the Ubuntu help site, all three of which I contribute to. In the past, those references / link were included in the Ubuntu article. By hiding/censoring them, users do not find the sites as easily. One of the current Microsoft ad campaigns suggests there is little community support for Ubuntu, and this is clearly false. I am very much against co-ordinated campaigns against Linux and Ubuntu, and am a veteran of these types of FUD campaigns, both here on Wikipedia and on a national scale (in the US). Debian/Ubuntu is a collection of contributors, and there are many ways of accomplishing things. It is always questionable in the open source movement when some users want to censor other users' methods. Perspectoff (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And that is exactly what I say below, we are not a web directory. Wikipedia is not here to tell where the forums and wikis are, it is here to present the topic in an encyclopedic way (and presenting that in a properly referenced way, of course, using independent, secondary sources).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC) (adapted. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC))


 * Of course, while Wikipedia is not a directory, we can add a link to DMOZ, which is a directory. It's a pretty standard way to get around this sort of problem, and I have done so. Yworo (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wonderful solution, thanks Yworo! --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Eudemis (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, since I am having a similar discussion on Perspectoff's talkpage, I'd better discuss it here as well:

1) these links are not suitable as external links, forums, wikis, etc. etc. are discouraged, and here, where there is the official Ubuntu homepage, there is no need for wiki and forum links. So they should be removed (and they should already have been removed a long time ago).  Linking to the wiki or the forum can be done by the official Ubuntu site (if they think they are notable en significant enough to be linked prominently from their site).

2) In later edits, Perspectoff is using these links as references, see e.g. diff. Giving the website as a reference for a statement where the existence of that website is mentioned is using a primary source, and it does not make the sentence notable.  It should at the very least have a secondary source, or better, only secondary sources.  There is no need to link to the forum or the wiki there.  The important information, when there are secondary sources giving it notability, would be the existence, not the live link to it.  We are not a web directory, let that be handled by the official Ubuntu site.

3) That links are there for several years does not mean that they follow policy, it does not mean that their inclusion had consensus, and if it did have consensus, that consensus can have changed inbetween resulting in them now being challenged. In any case, if they were removed, get consensus here for inclusion.

Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Peacock terms and NPOV
I found this to be unacceptable peacocking and removed it: "By keeping Ubuntu free and open source, Canonical is able to utilize the talents of community developers in Ubuntu's constituent components."

It sounds way too much like an advert for Ubuntu and endorsement for open source in general. FOSS may be good, but that is not the point of this article to determine.

I also removed this: "Ubuntu provides an up-to-date, stable operating system for the average user, with a strong focus on usability and ease of installation."

This too sounds like an advert for the OS. If the articles on windows 7 said something like, "in accordance with its slogan, Windows 7 simplifies computing", it would be considered non-NPOV and removed accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.31.182 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Two things...
Two things concern me about this article. It says at the beginning: "Ubuntu provides an up-to-date, stable operating system for the average user, with a strong focus on usability and ease of installation." Isn't this NPOV? Wouldn't it be better to phrase it "Ubuntu AIMS to provide..."? And just what is "the average user"? The term is quite ambiguous. Wouldn't it be better to say, "Ubuntu AIMS to provide a desktop OS..."?

And another thing. The screenshot of the LiveCD session. What purpose does it serve? It's fundamentally the same as the image at the top of the article. The section about being a LiveCD doesn't really require a screenshot does it? And if it does, at least make it something that isn't repeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.31.182 (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you say. I also think the article should have a specific section about criticism, as Ubuntu is almost certainly the most scorned distribution around. Mostly scorned by more advanced *nix users to be exact. Especially the Debian community tends to view it primarily as a leech of their hard work. Right now the article reads like blatant advertising and should be changed to reflect a more somber picture of this distribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.227.121 (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. You can say anything "AIMS" to do anything. That is meaningless and certainly is not encyclopedic. There are folks that AIM to go to Mars, but that doesn't mean they have done it or that their AIMS should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. This operating system does exactly what the article says it does. It is indeed "up-to-date", it is indeed "stable for the average user", and it indeed does "have a strong focus on (etc.)"... That is factual. Of course, anyone can naysay anything, but that does not make opinionated objections such as those you have expressed factual. Similarly, scorn is in the eye of the beholder. Microsoft and Apple scorn Linux, but the Army, the French government, NASA, Lawrence Livermore laboratories, and James Cameron (when making the movie Avatar) don't. BTW, all encyclopedic articles can be considered advertising by your vague assertions. However, Ubuntu is not promoted as being for sale in this article (and that is the nature of advertising forbidden by Wikipedia). Were your definition of advertising to hold true, every article associated with a public product would have to be removed. Wikipedia would be a pretty empty medium in that instance. Perspectoff (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but that is clearly non-NPOV and weasel-wording/peacocking. Saying that "Ubuntu provides a stable, up-to-date system" is like a Coke article claiming that "Coke provides a refreshing drinking experience". I have no doubt in my mind that if the Windows or Mac articles claimed something like "Windows/Mac is a very stable OS", you would slam it for being non-NPOV, especially considering your userpage lists comments like "Richard Stallman is my hero. Linus Torvalds is second.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.31.182 (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

quote: Ubuntu is almost certainly the most scorned distribution around. Mostly scorned by more advanced *nix users to be exact. unquote. That is an incredibly biased an unsubstantiated personal opinion. It also happens to not coincide with the reality as seen by such sights as distrowatch. If Debian were so great then how come dozens of distros have felt compelled to take the raw material of debian and turn it into something that is actually better and usable. I've tried debian.... several times...  starting years ago...  yes it has improved, but I will take the polishing that ubuntu applies, any day vs the RAW problematic unfinished debian. and I do consider myself to be an advanced *nix user. 63.228.115.141 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You overlooked the argument that Ubuntu is mainly regarded as a leech and also as oversimplified to the point of utter stupidity. If you look for specific threads like Ubuntu vs X or Ubuntu vs Y you'll find exactly the same kind of criticism that I mentioned. The open source community is not just distrowatch and similar sites. There are many other sites without such pointless and asinine popularity contests and on most of them Ubuntu -including the Ubuntu community- is not taken seriously, but frowned upon for being a distribution for livelong n00bs -or as put here- morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.211.179 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You overlooked the policy that talk pages aren't forums. If you have a WP:V add it to the article. No one is debating that good software in the FOSS community is used by the Ubuntu distro. Not sure how that can be leaching. Not sure how simplifying an overly complex thing is a bad thing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambig suggestion
I just took a look at hits, and this page seems to get 6 times as many hits as all of the other Ubuntus combined. So what I'm suggesting is:


 * 1) Make "Ubuntu" redirect to this (and change the current "Ubuntu" page to Ubuntu (disambiguation).
 * 2) Add Ubuntu (philosophy) as a link at the top of this article, since it and this article take up 98% of all "Ubuntu" traffic (aside from the disambig page)
 * 3) Add a link to Ubuntu (disambiguation) at the top as well.

Thoughts? Awickert (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion about this in the archives. - Team4Technologies (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, totally missed the archive box. In that case, I'll be hatting this and apologizing. Awickert (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary links edit war
Please stop edit warring over the wiktionary links in the release names, and discuss the matter here. FWIW, in my view, they are harmless enough, and actually may be quite interesting to those of limited English vocabulary. I clicked on Edgy, and was quite happy with all the meanings and their possible relevance. Interesting and inoffensive, I'd say. --Nigelj (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes please stop edit warring over them. Since the adjectives are merely there for alteration of the code name and not part of the definition itself, what the term actually means is irrelevant just as the noun is. Both should be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't really call this edit warring, but yes, I believe Rmcfanatic needs to discuss this, as it seems that the other editors see no point in including the links. Regarding the adjective, it is largely unneeded because the core part of the word is the noun, which is what the software releases are primarily known as.
 * Update: Notified user to discuss too. Netalarm talk 22:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't regard this as edit warring, you shouldn't have reverted the last edit before actually having a discussion here. Besides, I didn't add those links to Wiktionary, it was an edit by user Gr0ff which was immediately reverted by user Yworo without discussion or consensus. As I share the same point of view as user Nigelj on this topic I reverted this edit because the links could very be well be highly appreciated by Ubuntu users whose first language is not English. After all Ubuntu is supposed to be a global and cross-cultural project and there's nothing wrong in the consideration if this fact within the article. Rmcfanatic (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think user Netalarm should invite user Gr0ff to this discussion here as well, if he hasn't done so yet. Rmcfanatic (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't regard this as edit warring because I view this as part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, which is entirely fine at changing content if we all engage in a discussion. I had to go when I posted this, so I didn't have time to check the entire history. Netalarm talk 00:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Rmcfanatic Please read WP:BRD; consensus isn't necessary to revert a change. Personally, I could go either way on this issue. If I had to vote, I'd give weak support to keeping the links since I don't see any harm in providing them. Is there something (besides overlinking, which I'm not sure applies) which I'm missing in this regard? Jess talk&#124;edits 23:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If so, why didn't you refrain from removing them again? Honestly, that looks like a mild contradiction to me. If they don't do any harm we could keep these links until a consensus is reached. Furthermore the original editor who added them hasn't had the chance to make his point so far. Rmcfanatic (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Especially after reading your link to WP:BRD I believe this might have been the better option. Rmcfanatic (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.


 * BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.


 * BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. Try an edit summary of "Let's talk about this; I'll start the discussion with a list of my objections" rather than "Undo. I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.


 * Rmfanatic, please actually read WP:BRD. Seriously. Consensus is needed before reintroducing the content, not before removing it. What you were doing is edit warring, which is against policy. Jess talk&#124;edits 23:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See my comment above please, I read WP:BRD. If I was edit warring we wouldn't have this conversation. Rmcfanatic (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You were edit warring; please also read WP:EW. What you were supposed to take from WP:BRD is that re-reverting is not the next step in the cycle, discussion is. That's what we're doing now, and now it's time to wait for consensus. Unless you have policies to cite regarding wikitionary, there's not much more for you to say. It's time for those who object to voice solid reasons for excluding the links. If you wish to have further policy-related discussion, it would probably be best to do it on user space. Jess talk&#124;edits 00:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

off-topic discussion
Note The account Rmfanatic is less than 24 hours old, and has had no contributions outside of this topic. Please examine the edit history of this topic to determine if Rmfanatic is a sockpuppet. If he is, any further changes should be reverted immediately, and he should be reported to SPI. In the event that the changes continue, and Rmfanatic has not contributed outside of this topic, bring Rmfanatic to AI/V as rather than AI/EW, as the beheavior would indicate that Rmfanatic is an SPA vandal, rather than a legitimate user involved in edit warring. Sven Manguard Talk  23:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Rmfanatic, of whom are you a sockpuppet? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My god, that's the least constuctive method of handling this. You're supposed to look at the page history and figure it out yourself, not just jump straight to the accusations stage. LOL. Sven Manguard  Talk  23:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I didn't see your question until after I posted. I assumed Rmfanatic was a sockpuppet of Tacoboy42, but that in turn appears to be a sockpuppet of ... ? I was just hoping for Rmfanatic to make life easier for an admin who had to trace IPs (assuming Rmfanatic isn't spoofing IP). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Walter, apart from the fact that it's none of your business who I am, I'm nobody's sockpuppet, please don't lower yourself to this kind of ad hominem nonsense, it doesn't add any value to the discussion or the article. It's also irrelevant and off-topic. Rmcfanatic (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)\


 * He apologized before you posted, so your angry response is unwarranted. Sven Manguard  Talk</b>  00:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think he apologized to you, because I didn't ask any question as far as I remember. Besides, why would I be angry? I'm not. Rmcfanatic (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The only person that came to mind in my quick check was Perspectoff, who was blocked for 24h for edit warring on 11 October 2010, but this isn't an accusation, just an observation. There isn't enough beheavioral evidence for me to initiate an SPI myself. Having never heard of Tacoboy42, I have no idea what possible connection they might have, but if you think that the two are connected (rmc and taco, that is), that's enough for an SPI in and of itself, you don't need the master if you have two socks, eventually, if you take out enough socks, checkuser should dig up the master itself (somehow). Sven Manguard  <sub style="text-shadow:#ffd700 0.14em 0.14em 0.14em"><b style="color:black;">Talk</b>  23:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking Perspectoff too. And Rmcfanatic, I never made any ad hominem attacks towards you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Accusation of sockpuppetry for no specific reason is an ad hominem attack, especially if it's misused to divert from the original core of the discussion. Namely the question if the links to Wiktionary should be included or not. I would kindly ask you to return to on-topic territory. Rmcfanatic (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Guys, this doesn't belong here. If you have something besides a hunch, then bring it to a noticeboard or user talk. Otherwise, I see no reason to breach WP:AGF, nor pollute this article talk page with discussion of user behavior. <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 00:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If only starting sockpuppet investigations were easier. I went to open one earlier today and found no end of difficulty. One final thing Rmcfanatic, would you like me to apologize for not assuming good faith or for questioning whether you were a sock puppet? The easiest thing to do would have been to answer the question outright. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jess, I appreciate your input here greatly. Rmcfanatic (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Walter, I'm not sure where you need clarification. I thought I answered your original question by stating that I was nobody's sockpuppet as soon as I noticed it, i.e. outright? Rmcfanatic (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Back to the point
I don't think either of the links are necessary as they are not describing the product. They are only code names. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The links are useful, however, as attested to by a few editors above. Whether they are necessary doesn't seem so much relevant as whether there's a specific reason they don't belong. Is there such a reason that I'm missing? <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 00:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For what exactly are they useful? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * They're useful in the same way that links to another wikipedia article are useful; they provides information about the term. Linking in this way seems to be a fairly common practice, and providing stale black text will obviously do little to impart any of that same information. A few editors have already attested to that... so again, it seems to me that there should be a good reason to exclude them which is currently eluding me. Is there such a reason, besides "we could do without them"? <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 01:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The manual of style states that we should "avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words". That is, English Wikipedia is intended to be read by fluent English speakers, and therefore words which are expected to be known by most English speakers should not be linked. This would seem to apply here. Yworo (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken. However, IMHO the names of animals (which are linked) are often more common than the adjectives which are currently unlinked. (e.g. Hoary vs Hedgehog) If we should apply that section of the MoS on the basis of commonality, it would seem to apply to both. Is there a reason we're linking one but not the other? <b style="border:1px solid #000;padding:4px">Jess</b> talk&#124;edits 02:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Fairly common practice". I fully disagree. Look at development of Windows XP and other project development pages. The code names are not linked. Can you show any of this "common practice" elsewhere? These terms need not be understood at all because they don't change the version of the OS. If they were named after cities of the world, it wouldn't mean that they need to be linked to those cities. If this were an article explaining the release, I could see an explanation of why the code name was chosen based on the attributes of that object, I could understand. However, they're simply names used to define the code base, nothing else. They certainly state nothing about the functionality of the OS or the included software. Am I to believe that 4.10 is somehow warty or like a warthog in some way? Is 6.10 somehow edgier than previous releases or that it pays homage to the Eft? There is no rationale behind the of linking the nouns and as such is not supportable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're right, the animal names shouldn't be linked either. Yworo (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's true. Both the animal names and the wacky adjectives are only a bit of fun. It doesn't matter if people don't know what the animals look like, or what the adjectives mean, as the article is about software not animals. It was only for fun, but I guess we have to be a seriouz cyclopedia. Maybe there's already a browser with Wiktionary and Wikipedia links in its right-click context menu for each word and phrase? If not, we should start one. --Nigelj (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or a plug-in! Good suggestion NigelJ. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I found that Ubuntu has a table on which the old one in the article was based (or was theirs based on ours?): https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DevelopmentCodeNames Notice that the nouns are linked. The adjectives are not currently linked. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea for a new addition
An anon added a section for an historical list of minimum requirements. It was uncited and pretty much empty after I gutted the uncited material and so a different anon removed it.


 * Historical minimum system requirements

Should we keep and fill this out or not? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say the history of minimum system requirements is not of general interest. --Rprpr (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not what 'Citation Needed' is for.
"[| (Undid revision 395471779 by Dr. Zed (talk) The point is that the statement is not accurate and needs to be explained.)]"

I've fixed it once. I now leave it for someone else to fix. However, if you feel that it is not accurate or you need it explained, Citation needed is not the proper response.

The fact that, with the exception noted, the names are alphabetical doesn't need a citation. They are alphabetical. If you feel alphabetical needs explaining, make it a link to the definition.

As far as the 'what happens when the alphabet runs out'.... The statement is not predicting the future nor should it be. This is an encyclopaedia. It is not laying out the guidelines for the next 14 releases. When the facts of the situation change, which may take about 7 years, someone else can make an edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Zed (talk • contribs) 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually found a discussion related to the list. They plan on wrapping back to A after they have released Zs. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reception
I reorganized it so it seemed a little less like a list. Part of this was putting each bit of info into one of four categories- general distribution numbers, reviews/rewards, specific public sector use, and celebrity endorsement. I also pulled a few more facts from two articles. Unfortunately, I'm not well versed enough to use reference shortcuts, or however you describe citing to the same reference multiple times rather than having multiple copies of the same full cite. Because of this, I put one citation at the end of the paragraph regarding public sector implementations, but that citation applies to all facts regarding the French National Police.

In addition to any other improvements on this, web citations still need to be expanded out per the To Do list at the top. IMHO (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge "Development" with "History and development process" section
Because Development section shouldn't be an individual section due of its short length. I think also the content would fit better on the History and development process section.

Reminder: the section still needs adequate citations and references.

--NeoAdonis (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I second this suggestion. --Rprpr (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Oppose: They are two different topics, or at least they should be. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Improving the table of releases
I'd say the current table doesn't look nice when limited to 39% of page width. I suggest using different date format:

Also, the table with description of colours could be merged to the table of releases. Any comments? -- Rprpr (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The table is fine. The date format is also fine. There's no need to change either. Also removing the hyperlinks as per above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the ISO dates as used above are a good suggestion. I thought they were in the table. Links are gone though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Table changed in revision 394991258. --Rprpr (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Inacurate description of Ubuntu
The following sentence should be changed:

"In contrast to other forks of Debian, which extensively use proprietary and closed source add-ons, Ubuntu uses primarily free (libre) software, making an exception only for some proprietary hardware drivers.[17]"

Which "other forks" does this refer to ? I think this sentence is misleading as it gives the impression that all other Debian based distributions have proprietary software installed by default. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.180.29 (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done a quick examination of Debian-based Linux distributions and it seems that only the following active distros include proprietary software by default: CrunchBang Linux, Maemo and Xandros, which is a small fraction. I'd say that the above sentence should be corrected. --Rprpr (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I second this. It is uncommon for Linux OSes in general to have built-in proprietary software. Lucasoutloud (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The inaccurate sentence removed in revision 395632886. --Rprpr (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations in infobox
I just noticed that the first footnote in the lead is 4 and realised the infobox has 3 footnotes. I can't find a specific rule one way or the other, but it doesn't look clean to me and I'm thinking they should be worked into the body where possible. How do others feel? The latest stable version can easily be put right in the lead and the body. I'm not sure how to work in the other two. IMHO (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Anon objection to the phrase "while the OS itself is entirely free."
Not sure what the problem with the phrase's inclusion is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the objection is that it's redundant to "Ubuntu (pronounced /ʊˈbʊntuː/)[5][6] is a computer operating system based on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution and distributed as free and open source software."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be if the sentences followed each other, but they're in different paragraphs. Do you think it's redundant? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To my eye, it's the old Free/Libre, Beer/Speech dichotomy. To me, the phrase "free and open source software" is ambiguous, but probably tends closer to imparting the meaning about freedom. Any doubt is cleared up once and for all when, two paragraphs later and talking about selling support and services, we add that "the OS itself is entirely free". Then the reader is in no doubt that this is both Free and Libre Open Source Software, without slogging on to explain it all. To say that we have used the word in one sense so we must not use it in the other sense as that's repetition, seems disingenuous. --Nigelj (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Question
Are the specs for the server and desktop versions switched? Ubuntu really needs only 128 MB for the server while 512 MB for the desktop? Simesa (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not switched. The server does not use a GUI and so requires less memory. The sources would confirm this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Link away from disambiguation
Why was Ubuntu (Operating System) changed to Ubuntu without any discussion now and thoroughly ignoring the previous discussions about changing it? - Team4Technologies (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because an editor thought it was the primary subject and should be the landing page. "moved Ubuntu (operating system) to Ubuntu: by far the primary meaning, per http://stats.grok.se". It does ignore consensus though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this was the correct decision. The operating system is clearly the primary topic in the English-speaking world. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It seemed so obvious I didn't even realize it was debated. See the table below for my reasoning, it seems to me we can be extremely certain anyone typing "Ubuntu" in the search bar most likely wants the OS. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  20:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

[1] The first number includes just links to Ubuntu (operating system). The parenthetical includes all links to Ubuntu as well as links to Ubuntu (operating system). A quick examination shows that almost all of the links to Ubuntu (at least, every one I looked at) refer to the OS.
 * I agree with you. The OS is clearly the primary topic. The only argument I've seen for going to disambiguation instead of the OS, are weak arguments on the importance of promoting cultural diversity by informing people about the African philosophical term, or that if this was the Bantu-speaking Wikipedia, then more people would be looking for the philosophy term. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the move. The OS is clearly the primary topic per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Falcorian (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we are attempting to change consensus, those who commented on it earlier (please see the archives) should be consulted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been debated countless times before on the DAB page's talk page. Consensus was to have Ubuntu as a DAB page with no redirect. This edit conflicts with those decisions, and I think it should be reverted until such time a new discussion has been had and a new consensus has been reached. Please also note that this isn't the appropriate forum for the discussion, since it is the talk page for only one of the DAB's subtopics. It would be akin to the editors of Apple Inc. having a discussion and agreeing to become the primary topic for apple - the correct place to raise this for discussion would be at the DAB page's talk page. The previous discussions are at
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ubuntu/Archive_1#Continuation_of_the_primary_topic_discussion
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ubuntu/Archive_2.
 * In my personal opinion, there may be a new case for pointing Ubuntu directly at the OS's page because the guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have changed, but given the amount of discussion this has generated in the past, editing it while ignoring pages and pages of discussion on talk pages is poor form. --HiltonLange (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC tells us clearly what we should do here, and nobody in either of those conversations has provided valid reasons for ignoring it. I think that it was good form to ignore the large number of irrelevant WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, and do the right thing anyway. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were a simple case, consensus would not repeatedly have found otherwise. Please at least educate yourself by reading the previous discussions and finding out why a DAB page was used. Two key facts influenced the decision: More English speakers understand Ubuntu to refer to the philosophy than the operating system, and the philosophy is the origin for the name of the OS. The guidelines are exactly that, guidelines, not to be blindly followed when the situation is not straightforward. --HiltonLange (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is manifestly false that more English speakers think of the philosophy rather than the OS. That's why the OS receives nearly 8 times as much traffic, even though they are having to go through a disambiguation page to get to it-- because it's what the vast majority of English speakers mean by "Ubuntu". As far as the philosophy being the origin of the name, there is nothing in policy that gives that any significance. The OS is clearly the primary topic, by any metric. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm finding it unproductive to continue this discussion if you don't read the old linked talk page discussions. More English internet users know of the operating system, by quite some margin. More English speaking people overall know of the philosophy, by quite some margin. You may want to read WikiProject Countering systemic bias.--HiltonLange (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The goal here though is to create the best resource for our readers. And those readers, by necessity, are using the Internet to read Wikipedia. I don't see why we should inconvenience them when we have an 80% to 90% chance of improving their experience by taking them directly to the page on the OS. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  05:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A sound argument, and well stated. I just think that the appropriate place to discuss the decision is at WP:RM, rather than after an undiscussed move against prior consensus. (Which may well change in a new discussion) --HiltonLange (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, the goal here is to create a neutral encyclopedia (whatever that might mean). It might well be that most or all of our readers instead want an encyclopedia that confirms their existing biases.  If so, they're in the wrong place, but that's not our problem.  We should not be collecting or disclosing page view statistics at all, for privacy and other reasons.  And it is not (in principle) necessary that our readers read Wikipedia over the Internet; it's just an accident and/or product of misplaced priorities on our part.  The whole point of our CC/GFDL licensing is to enable distribution and use of Wikipedia by all sorts of other media like Wikireader or preinstallation on computer hard drives, for use without internet.  That's something we should be working on, but it gets off-topic for this discussion.  It could very well be that the current internet-heavy reader population creates a systemic bias.  07:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how improving reader experience is introducing a 'bias'. What you haven't answered is why, if I know that 8 out of 10 people searching for a particular term are looking for a certain article, I would ever not want to give them that page? This isn't about bias - this is entirely about reader experience. All the pages for all the definitions of Ubuntu exist and are accessible to all readers, and all are (ideally) presented neutrally and without bias. The project for countering systematic bias refers to adding information t on topics that we are categorically missing. It certainly has nothing to do with disambiguation pages.  Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  18:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that previous discussion when I moved the page. I'd have no problem moving it back if that is desired. But in the interests of making this slightly easier, I believe we should have the discussion of whether to move it first, rather than moving it back now. It would involve moving 3 pages, and updating a lot of double redirects, so if we discuss that first we can potentially save some of that. Prodego <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  02:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the outcome of any discussion about this, I think that if it were to be changed, it would probably be a DAB with redirect, given that the operating system article should live at a more fully qualified name, as in the precedents at Microsoft Windows, Mandriva Linux or Apple Inc.. It's not appropriate for this page to exist occupying the root word Ubuntu. --HiltonLange (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that given the fact that the OS is the primary topic, the burden should be on anyone who wants the disambiguation page to explain why we should ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For the last year or two, the DAB page has been at Ubuntu. It was only changed to the OS today. I don't believe that the burden should be on those who want to maintain status quo and the current repeated consensus.--HiltonLange (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are all manner of pages that have had problems for years. Having a problem for a long time doesn't somehow make it better. The burden does indeed fall on people who are choosing to violate policy (namely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) to give a very good reason for doing so. If they can't provide good reasons, then we should just follow WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a difference of opinion on what the primary page should be. Heck, I might even agree with you, given the updates to the guidelines. But you can't simply ignore the fact that time and again consensus has been reached, including an RfC or two, that the DAB should be the landing page. The reasons were given, consensus was reached time and again. Are you suggesting that if I feel that consensus is incorrect, that I should just ignore it and "fix" a page without discussion? --HiltonLange (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it should be left alone unless there's consensus to change it, especially since it's been stable for a long time. --Pnm (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per HiltonLange's concerns, I think it should be moved back until a discussion has taken place. It's unfortunate it's so much work, but the amount of past discussion is shows it's controversial; watchers of WP:RM will take interest. It's not a good occasion to pre-empt discussion for the routine application of a guideline. (I understand it wasn't intentional.) --Pnm (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the existence and process at WP:RM for dealing with exactly these kind of moves, I think it's absolutely imperative to move it back and start the process there so it can be done correctly. It appears to have been done unintentionally, but if bypassing the process shifted the burden of starting a discussion at WP:RM to people favoring the other convention, nobody would ever use WP:RM! --HiltonLange (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would somebody please just move it back? WP:BRD and all that.  67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no need to move it back unless or until consensus is reached that it should be moved back. The arguments above, along with wp:primarytopic seem to justify the move as it currently stands, with mere inertia having prevented our policy and common sense from prevailing in the past.  Someone inadvertently broke through that inertia here, and I don't see anywhere near a consensus at this point that we ought to revert.  <b style="color:#df1620;">jæs</b> <small style="color:#6b6c6d;">(talk)  09:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have notified the disambiguation project of this move and discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have also linked here from Talk:Ubuntu_(disambiguation). I must say the lack of notification to the Wikiproject and on the talk page of the dab page was disappointing. DuncanHill (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My opinion as a mere disambiguator is that the pages should be moved back and incoming links checked first and then have a move discussion if anyone wants the computer thing at the bare title. It is much easier to check incoming links with the titles dabbed than it is with a plain title. DuncanHill (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will also note that Prodego, who not only didn't bother to read the talk pages, has buggered up the talk page archives. The archives for the dab page talk are not longer linked from where they should be, and link back to the wrong page too. Please can an admin undo the disruption caused by the undiscussed move? DuncanHill (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Readers here are likely to agree with the proposed change to the primary topic. Readers at Talk:Ubuntu (philosophy) and Talk:Ubuntu (disambiguation) should also be engaged in the spirit of Wikipedia. Note that the disambiguation guidelines list pageviews as a tool to help editors determine primary topic, not the determiner themselves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Return to disambiguation page
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: recent contested move reverted. BTW, I am following process for Wikipedia's sake, not for process's sake. Reverting contested moves, especially when the contested move contradicts prior consensus, is in the spirit of Wikipedia. JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu → Ubuntu (operating system) — Prodego's actions were indeed in poor form, however process for process sake is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. So instead of bickering over failure to follow process, I ask instead we discuss the fate of this article. Ready, set, discuss! Brandon (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you at least fix the talk page archives? It would be helpful if editors were readily able to access the previous discussions about moves, instead of them being hidden as Prodego has left them. One of the reasons we have process is to stop this kind of mess happening in the first place. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Current discussion of disambiguation / redirection
Whether Ubuntu should redirect to this article or be the disambiguation page is currently taking place here: Talk:Ubuntu. —Darxus (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ubuntu which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu and security
The article should say a little more on Ubuntu/Linux/Unix and security ..

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=510812 Viralmeme (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be more of a general linux/unix subject or an article comparing them with other OSs- MS, Apple, etc. A small bit with a link to such an article may be appropriate.  IMHO (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It might also be an attempt to compare it with OpenBSD whose main goal is to make a secure UNIX. In comparison with that, all other UNIX flavours are not secure. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by attempt, but as far as an across the board comparison, I could see that in more general terms- Ubuntu's comparison amongst Linux/Unix-like systems in a number of categories- security, ease of use, utility, etc. A focus on just security though seems a little much for this article, unless there's some issue or coverage that would justify giving weight to it.  IMHO (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A focus not just on security, but it does need mentioning. As in Linux don't ship with an AntiVirus package as it isn't needed. Viralmeme (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)