Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 6

Interesting Graph
I just noticed that a rather interesting graph was added by 16@r that I think is supposed to be showing the support period for the various releases, but if that's the case it appears to be at least partly wrong. I've moved it here so that it can be worked on :)

-- Limulus 20:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

--- Updated with data from wiki.ubuntu.com. It now has all announced (or actual) release and EOL dates (EOL approximate for Edgy and Feisty, as they haven't been narrowed down to a specific date yet). Put Dapper in a different color to help highlight the difference in support cycles. Is ready for Feisty+1 to be added when (officially) announced (Feisty+1 is inserted, but commented out). vmz 20:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge from
IP 64.185.161.211 removed the mergefrom tag at the start of the article. This merger had been proposed long ago on Proposed mergers in August 2006. Kindly do not remove the tag. I'd like to hear other editors' views on this merge from Ubuntu Women. If there are no objections in 48 hours, I'll complete the merge. Thanks xC | ☎  17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems perfectly fine to me; I doubt Ubuntu Women will ever go beyond stub-class. Stale Fries taste better 01:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm for Ubuntu women not having its own article - there's really not any secondary info about it. There really doesn't need to be anymore than a sentence or two here about it though.  Wickethewok 03:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ubuntu Women article should be merged into this article or into an Ubuntu teams article that could also cover other notable Ubuntu teams like the Technical Board, Community Council, and Forums Council. —mako (talk•contribs) 05:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Ubuntu Women article should be merged with the main article, as it isn't likely that it is going to get expanded beyond it's current state and in my opinion doesn't really justify it's own article. Poeloq 13:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Chris Cunningham 14:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

6.10 Shipit?
I recently received 6.10 cds from shipit, they may be availible for free now.
 * I got,but only for PC. My friend signed me up and lied, and said I was from a school or something...RealG187 16:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Glass Gnome Theme
Does anyone know where I can get the theme mentioned in the article that looks like windows vista?  Storm talon  09:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a support forum for Ubuntu. ubuntuforums.org is one. --Strangnet 11:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Update
The version info needs updated but I am not sure which pages to update and where to find good refs. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 14:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu Studio
There has been a little tussling over Ubuntu Studio in the list of custom distribution. Ubuntu Studio is a community-created distribution that exists wholly within Ubuntu and is being developed within the project. It is simlar to Kubuntu, Edubuntu or Xubuntu in this way and I think it probably deserves a space in the list. —mako (talk•contribs) 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All of the "unofficial" projects were community developed. Ubuntu Studio is not in the Ubuntu Repos and is not officially supported by Cannocial. Dylan 01:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Feisty Fawn
It would be great to do a Feisty Fawn version of this article that would be merged into the article on 19th April. There are many changes and new functionalities that must be mentioned. Page for editing should be Talk:Ubuntu (Linux distribution)/Feisty. What do others think? --Emx 06:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone? I've made an article, and it needs to be updated. Many of us would like to see many new informations on article on 19 April... correct me if I'm wrong. --Emx 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's April 19th, as seen here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FeistyFawn and here: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2006-October/000212.html Altonbr 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC) [and also here: http://ubuntuforums.org/] Altonbr 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, according to the article, Ubuntu 7.04 has been released already; however, this does not appear to be true according to Ubuntu's site, perhaps this should be corrected until 7.04 is released? It has the potential to create much confusion. --panth0r 06:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree because today is the 19th and on ubuntus site it is written that the release will be tomorrow, that would mean the 20th. We should update the article. --134.155.99.41 07:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ubuntu.com appears to be getting hammered, but Feisty appears to have indeed been released -- Limulus 10:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to IRC channels, Feisty isn't out yet, and ISO files are old (April 15). --Emx 13:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and BTW, to anyone who's curious, links to  which states that while ubuntu.com had 100% uptime on April 18, it had just under 42% uptime (almost 14h downtime) on the 19th.  -- Limulus 10:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... relax. It's been released.

Should real NTFS read/write support be added to the feature list? — Omegatron 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. --Emx 12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu ports to alternate platfroms
why the article doesn't contains information about Ubuntu' ports to many platforms, include HP-PA RISC, IA-64 Itanium/Itanium2 (Ubuntu 5.10, 6.06 http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ports/releases/6.06.1/release.1/), IA-64 I/I2, Playstation3 (7.04 http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ports/releases/7.04/beta/). Also there a talks about Wubuntu for Wii —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.188.218.226 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

PowerPC is now moved to the ports section http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ports/releases/feisty/release --87.127.117.246 16:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We have the Playstation 3 in the infobox, but not the others. As far as I know those are unofficial ports. We also have the PowerPC version in the info box even though it is no longer official. Do we remove PS3 and PowerPC, or add the rest? We're current inconsistant. Secretlondon 12:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

External link
I reverted an external link, and it wsa readded here: I have asked that user (no other contributions as of yet) to come to the talk page and speak to whether it's valid. I myself don't know to judge, but the site seemed like one of many. So I have mentioned it here. One revert (my removal) is all I do, so if someone else thinks it does not belong, please feel free to remove it again, or engage the user in discussion as I did at User talk:Alukasz ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted the link because I think it is the best discussion available on the installation of Ubuntu. It does not assume a readership that is familiar with Linux or computing but is at a beginner's level. To the best of my knowledge, no other discussion of installing Ubuntu has such a full complement of screenshots and discussion of issues -- not even the Ubunt website itself. Further to this, I have also proposed a section which would convey an overview of the Ubuntu installation process here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ubuntu_%28Linux_distribution%29#Section_on_Installing.3F. Alukasz 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Section on Installing?
Per my reply to Lar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ubuntu_%28Linux_distribution%29#External_link), I would suggest that this article have a section on the installation process. Ubuntu is one of a few Linux distributions that install from a live session. This process has confused more than one person, and I have found myself answering many Ubuntu installation questions in on-line forums. An overview on Wikipedia might settle it for some people. If there are no objects to it, I can prepare a draft and submit it in this talk forum. //Alukasz 22:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, the material may not fit well here. However this seems a great topic for Wikibooks, or perhaps for the external wiki WikiHow, so I'd encourage you to explore those options. It could then be linked from here, but we are not, ourselves, a primary source. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While I can appreciate that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, I think it important to give readers the steps so they have some idea of how Ubuntu is installed. Indeed, one should probably do this for most of the Linux distributions.  Not everyone understands what a keymap is or what partitions are.  An installation section would provide a point for allusion to those articles in Wikipedia.  Further, most people do not even know about WikiHow or Wikibooks (although the latter is better known than the former).  Frequently they do not turn up in a Google search.   //Alukasz 16:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added a section on installation. I have endeavoured to make it summatial in keeping with the tone and purpose of Wikipedia.  Comments and constructive criticism welcome. //Alukasz 08:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Samsara removed the steps of the installation without discussion. I have reinstated them.  As I said above, if there are comments or constructive criticism to be made about the section on installing, it seems a better way forward to discuss them hear and mutually agree on future course of redaction. //Alukasz 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but Wikipedia is not a howto site. I will be re-removing them per the guideline that we are an encyclopedia.-Localzuk(talk) 18:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot
What else should be shown in the article? I can make screenshots :) --Emx 20:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Too many screenshots simply make for slower loading of this entry in a browser. Unless they show something that the text cannot convey, I would tend to see them as inappropriate.  //Alukasz 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Avoid tables where possible
The last column in this table should be put into prose and go in the "History" section.

Example:

Ubuntu made its first public appearance with version 4.10 on 20 October 2004. This first release supported the x86, x86-64 and PowerPC architectures, and could be ordered free of charge through the ShipIt service. Version 5.04 included an update manager, improved laptop support describe this, and was compatible with Kickstart explain briefly what this is. etc. etc.

And just to repeat why this is good practice: it helps the people who make audio recordings of articles because tables don't sound very good in audio (try it - make a recording of yourself reading the table (no additional words allowed) and give it to a friend and ask them to figure out what's going on; see how long it takes them; then compare this with a prose-converted version).

Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there are many precedents for using tables for software releases, and I think the goal should be clarity, not prosification for the sake of it. - Sikon 14:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Samsara; prose should be preferred. --Emx 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Samsara. The table is the most efficient and clear way to present the information, and as such should remain. --Falcorian (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're effectively arguing that there shouldn't be an audio version of this article. I agree with Samsara. If it can be nicely rendered into prose it should be. A table is a lazy substitute for good writing. pschemp | talk 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not think the written articled should have to conform to the needs of the spoke article. With regards to this, I believe the table is not the lazy solution, but the one that allows the easiest access to the data in written form. If the spoken article project has problems with tables, then I believe they should come up with a standard way to turn tables into speech, not simply remove all tables from articles they wish to convert to audio. --Falcorian (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to have misunderstood the intention of the author. While I believe the table should remain, I am not opposed to converting the last column into prose, although I think it should stay in column form as well. --Falcorian (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we don't duplicate content. It's either a table column, or in prose, not both. Avoiding redundancy is one of the main rules in technical writing. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm with Samsara on this, we should take the column out, turn it into prose where it can be developed fully and the basic numerical/name data left in the table.-Localzuk(talk) 16:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I still find the column superior for quick access to the information. While prose has merit in its ability to be easily converted to audio, and in its ability to explain more in depth, if I have to pick one (which I do not believe is the case, but suit yourself) then I back the table. --Falcorian (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Having had a few minutes to think it over logically, the merits I listed of prose seems to outweigh the single merit (speed) of column form for the Notes section. The other columns though are much better suited to table form in my opinion (Version, Release Date, End of Support Date, a color coded status). Release name could be in either form, and I would argue it should be in both prose and a table, as it is the main identifier of each version among the public. (And I should really stop replying before thinking... ) --Falcorian (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think the table should remain as is. If it is desirable for the information to be available in prose format, so be it.  But such should not happen at the sake of the table.  I would submit that most people will come, look at the table and leave, not stopping to read the prose.  Hardly the user experience one would want to encourage.  If more users are going to find it easier in a table, then it should remain there.  If we want to cater also to those who use screenreaders (something that I think is well worth doing), I think the principle against redundancy should be shelved for the moment.  After all, half the efficacy of any rule is in knowing where its exceptions lie. //Alukasz 17:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an opinion I can certainly agree with. I think the ideal outcome is keeping the table (it's merits being speed of access), and adding in a prose section. While one might argue this is unnecessary duplication, I would argue that it is not pure duplication, but expansion as the prose would allow a more detailed discussion for those interested. --Falcorian (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the proposal. A table allows quick, easy and focused access to information. I have no problem with converting it to prose off the cuff when reading it aloud, so I don't see why someone creating an audio version of the article would. Wikipedia should not be a collection of tables, but neither should it be page after page of prose where it is difficult to find the key points. Raoul 18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Raoul, that is not how audio versions are created. Audio versions are intended to be verbatim recordings of the article. It so happens that the person recording the article did complain to me about the tables, and so he should. Let's try and make life easy for each other. Editors are a precious resource. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose I might agree to the final row being in prose as long as the rest is left untouched. But I still hold the viewpoint that a table is by far the best way to display this information. I am possibly not as sympathetic as I should be for people making audio recordings (obviously it is great that people do it) but I fail to see the great difficulty a table of this style presents for audio recordings. Raoul 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is eventually going to happen (simply because, speaking from observation, this is what always happens eventually) is that as the table becomes too large for its section (may Ubuntu have many more releases...), it will be sent off to a separate article, which will probably be called something like "List of Ubuntu versions" or "Comparison of Ubuntu versions". The advantage in that is that a lot more detail can be included if the table is maintained separate from the article. For now, please let's prosify that last column, which was all that was being proposed. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got to apologize actually. For some reason I had thought you were talking about the final row (I even used the word "row" in my last comment) and since your example actually gave the first row I thought your underlying proposal was that all the rows should be in prose. I definitely have no objection to the final column being in prose as long as the table remains. 16:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

←I think the best solution here would be to leave the table as is and also have an expanded version in prose. I don't know the specifics of sound recording, I would presume that the standard of recording the article verbatim is good and works well in the majority of cases, and those accessing the audio version shouldn't be disadvantaged by optimisation for a visual layout. However, surely those who access the article in a visual form also have an equal right that their presentation isn't disadvantaged by optimisation for audio? As others have stated, the table is the best format visually. An expanded section in addtion to the table would also benefit those who are here looking for more information, without disadvantaging those looking for a quick reference for whom a table is ideal. If the final column is sub-optimal for audio listeners and the information is contained in prose form, I don't see a problem with omiting the final column from the audio recording, it wont remove any content from them. As the table uses colour-coding you are going to have to modify the audio recording from the text anyway. If there truly is no flexibility in the rule, then an additional prose section could be written, the article saved, the table column removed and the article save, the audio recorded for the article/section (however it is done), and then the removal of the column reverted. Although it might be arguable that this would be a WP:POINT violation, I'm sure that WP:IAR would apply in this sitation - but it will be asked why it wasn't applied to the verbatim and no duplication rules? Thryduulf 03:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is the best solution, and agree with the rational in regards to audio and visual presentations. --Falcorian (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The information in the table is *much* easier to follow. If we have to choose between easier to follow information in the main article - or a better audio version then I choose a better main article any day. The written version always has priority. Secretlondon 02:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Dell
While we're on the subject of redundancy, I noticed that the news about Dell are mentioned in both the History and Distribution sections. Can we reach an agreement about which it belongs in? Personally, I find it easier to maintain articles when events are described in chronological order, so I would prefer the history section. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Canonical category
Someone needs to run after that guy who tagged a number of articles with Category:Canonical, and make it clear to him that it should be "Canonical Ltd." or whatever the actual name and designation of the company is, to be unambiguous. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds like you think the category should be renamed - see WP:CFD for that. 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Linux for Clinics
Can some people here check out the Linux For Clinics article and let me know if you think it is notable and if it deserves to the be in ubuntu-distro template. mako (talk•contribs) 04:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Ubuntu" >< "Ubuntu Linux"
Interwiki got me confused... Is the right name for this "Ubuntu" or "Ubuntu Linux"? --87.52.25.155 09:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's "Ubuntu" see their home page and info there: http://www.ubuntu.com/ -- AdrianTM 14:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but more users/readers use the term "Ubuntu" in their searching than use "Ubuntu Linux". See http://www.google.com/trends?q=ubuntu%2C+ubuntu+linux%2C+linux .  It therefore seems only right to call the article Ubuntu. //Alukasz 18:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)