Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 9

Proposed new tables
I'm going to try one (or more) new tables here... Please feel free to throw your own here too. --Falcorian (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I think this is an improvement. I like having some images though so I left in the desktops. Might be nice to reorder some columns though. --Falcorian (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cut the screenshots. They greatly increase the time to download the page. You could either create a page of the screenshots, or put them in wikimedia, with a link from here.jonathon 01:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree the screenshots might be out of place in the table, I believe they belong in the article. All told they're only about what, 50k? That's only slightly larger than the main screen shot in the opening box... --Falcorian (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any point to the screenshots other than to display the default wallpaper? There doesn't seem to be much difference in displayed functionality between them. Chaos syndrome 13:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hense why I added USplash and the Login window -- to show the evolution of Ubuntu. But I agree, I've gone overboard. I rather all 3 screens at 50px than 1 at 100px though. Can we make a separate table for them or remove them all together? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altonbr (talk • contribs) 23:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Feel free to throw one up. --Falcorian (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the screenshots show anything useful? One is plenty and that's already shown in the infobox. Frankly, I'm not even sure we ought to have a Notable Programs column, either. The list seems to be just Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice, and Gnome. It's just too much information for one table. MahangaTalk 03:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree on the notable programs. --Falcorian (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments
New one up. Thoughts? --Falcorian (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. MahangaTalk 19:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we going to use this? Shall I put this up? MahangaTalk 23:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it'd be better to cut the current table to match this, that way new text revisions are kept. But sure! --Falcorian (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal of the screenshots of the desktops. If the images provided some sort of illustration of the differences between the versions that would be one thing, but as it was it only illustrated the differences in the default desktops. Sam Barsoom (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Debian and Ubuntu relationship
I just made some changes to update references regarding history of Ubuntu and its relationship with Debian which I imagine might offend anyone whom considers themselves undying fans of Ubuntu. So, I am putting this talk section here to avoid an edit war. I believe the changes are balanced and reflect the state of the current Ubuntu website which (as the Launchpad page documents) doesn't mention Debian's relationship to Ubuntu (it used to). JasonDClinton 02:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot
I replaced the infobox image with a PNG of the default INSTALLED desktop. Its at 800x600. I also uploaded a 1280x1024 version if that is preferred Image:Ubuntu-7.10-default-screenshot-1280x1024.png. ccwaters 14:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Second most popular desktop distribution of Linux?
-That's not true imo, it's second on the list of distrowatch but everyone knows that ubuntu is far more popular than pclinuxos (see google trends, polls etc). So this should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.250.49 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation in Zulu
Does anyone has the audio file of this word in Zulu pronunciation? I'm wondering to hear that. --Manop - TH (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu Foundation
I've created Ubuntu Foundation, previously a redirect to this article. Feel free to extend! -- Ddxc (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing the unofficial releases of ubuntu
If you're going to edit or delete things others have done see to it that their work wasn't in vain. If you remove then place the information were it should be and not just throw it away. Or even better extend the article with the info under a new section item.

Too much unordered info is never bad just needs cleaning up but too little will never lead forward, can never be referred and can never exist.

And Ubuntu is not owned by Canonical it is sponsored as it says in the beginning. So even if there are official releases even the non official will be seen as Ubuntu by people since they don't differ by wide margin from the original. They mostly use the same repos just adding or removing some packages and may contain other non Ubuntu community controlled repos. So their is not much difference between Ubuntu studio and Ubuntu ME for example they both take away some packages they both add some and they both make custom installs from the start and they make custom configs as well. unsupported distros don't need a separate page since the page doesn't offer anything new that couldn't be given or handled by the original page. The both distros are also worked on by different people other than Canonical especially the newer official projects. Even Ubuntu\Canonical recognize unofficial projects as contributing to the over all goal of Ubuntu and the open software movement. If you were a part of it you would know. By spreading Ubuntu the unofficial distros as well deserve recognition for there work its not too much to ask is it?!

The article is about Ubuntu that means everything about it including forks and other things related that can have internal or external links to reliable sources. --84.55.88.109 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A list of unofficial Ubuntu distributions/variants doesn't belong in the main article, since there's already a sub-article that would cover them (see List_of_Ubuntu-based_distributions). Andareed (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vendor Support
I broke off notes about Dell, Tesco and System76 into a 'Vendor Support' section as the 'History and Development Process' was growing quite large and not quite fitting for notices of vendor support. Permalink: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_%28Linux_distribution%29&oldid=184636460#Vendor_Support Altonbr (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting Started
I know wikipedia for a very stupid reason hates howtos, but a getting started section is needed, I think. I started recently Linux and had a "personal linux expierience", ei. indipendently mucking around looking at stuff (with little clue) and experimenting at first. I think the installation section should be expanded, pointing to sorces of information and common ways people learn about apps (just google it or youtube), plus guides like. furthermore the first think people do is tweek the graphics, so a list of commonly installed apps (compizfusion managing thinggy (link to instructions for cube), & emerald managing thinggy, Kiba or AWN, etc). there is no Topaz Brainstorm article in wikipedia, btw. --Squidonius (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is tht Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the Ubuntu article is for information about Ubuntu, not a how-to on Ubuntu. Links to how to websites at the bottom of the page would probably be ok, like Ubuntu Guide and Ubuntu Forums, but there shouldn't be any actual how-tos in Wikipedia. Jackster (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Guides would be more than welcome at Wikibooks though. --Falcorian (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Infact, there is already one. --Falcorian (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording of opening section
from the article:

The most recent LTS version, Ubuntu 6.06 (Dapper Drake), was released on June 1, 2006 (updated to Ubuntu 6.06.1 on August 10 2006); the next LTS version will be 8.04 (Hardy Heron), scheduled for release in April 2008. The most recent version, Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy Gibbon), was released on 18 October 2007.

this seems to imply that there are 2 most recent versions. how can this be? I dont claim to know anything of Ubuntu, but this is why i raise this point- i wanted to find out about it and am presented with this confusing statement. Anyone clarify? 129.12.234.250 (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The LTS one has a longer support life. The .1 version was just a minor update to the major 6.06 release. I'll try to clarify this a bit. Andareed (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We need to make this a feature article again
How are we going to make this a featured article? (2006 FA removal Altonbr (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Split off all unnecessary information into other articles, such as Ubuntu variants
 * Make multiple tables that hold multi-dimensional information, such as the table for releases could have a "screenshot" table or a "major program change" table. If that is too much information, then don't add it
 * This article has a lot of references, but there are a few places that have no references, such as the beginning of the Releases table, talk of Ubuntu variants, etc.
 * Where is the response to Ubuntu!? I see all sorts of articles all over the Internet with people excited for Ubuntu... why is it not in this article?
 * Anything else you guys and gals can think of?


 * I removed the Variants section since it's already in List of Ubuntu-based distributions. No need to clutter up this primary page with a long list. There's someone that keeps adding it, though...
 * Not a big fan of adding more stuff to the table.
 * I'll do some digging for some more references.
 * Response: We ought to add some reception from the latest (7.10) release.
 * Businessweek - Can Ubuntu Linux Really Run My Small Business?
 * what is it about ubuntu
 * Forbes.com - ubuntu
 * Wired.com
 * PCWorld
 * Add in tidbit about the success and expansion of Dell-Ubuntu
 * We can create a table for the system requirements, like XP and Vista have it.

MahangaTalk 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

IPA sucks
Can someone give the phonetic pronunciation so we don't have to stare at an annoying IPA table? Thanks 66.30.14.161 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a phonetic pronunciation. Just stare at the IPA table once, and you'll see that /u:/ is the vowel in crude, poo, womb, clue or Sioux.  The diacritics on the Zulu transcription indicate pitch.  — Chameleon 05:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The IPA is ridiculous. Any "phonetic alphabet" that acts as though /ch/ and /tsh/ are the same sound can't be that good. Besides, it would be a big help if Wikipedia used a PA with fewer arcane symbols(Webster's, for example, has an excellent one). BioTube (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

CD vs. DVD versions
The Live CD is readily available, as download etc. Live DVD versions exist, but where are the iso files? Where are the md5s? How big are the DVD versions? (The CD versions are about 700 MB.) What features do the DVD versions have that the CD versions do not? -69.87.203.75 (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Ubuntu
Do you have a comment about this revert? See my prior point here. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd personally prefer to type in Ubuntu and have it come up with "Ubuntu (Linux distribution)" instead of the Ubuntu (disambiguation). Searching "Windows" doesn't result in a page about window frames if you get my drift ;) Altonbr (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

redirect
Maybe make Ubuntu about the OS, with a note on the top redirecting to the philosophy and to other. I think over 95% of searches for Ubuntu are for the OS.--Sonjaaa (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think ubuntu should be a disambiguation page, just like it is now, you may be right, most people will probably be looking for the operating system called ubuntu, but the OS is not more important than the philosophy of ubuntu, the philosophy came first and ubuntu (the OS) was (and is) inspired in that philosophy, so I think the best way of doing it is like it is now, besides, people searching for ubuntu (OS), can easily get here... SF007 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is 8.04?
I can't find 8.04 on the Ubuntu site. I thought it was going to be released today. Does anyone know a mirror where I can get it?--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 07:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It won't be out until later today. The mirrors already have the iso's though. Andareed (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for the reply. The ISOs can't be downloaded, then--right? I found a torrent for 8.04 on The Pirate Bay! It's fast, too--500 kpbs.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the iso's (I run http://mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/), but nobody is supposed to download them until the official announcement. You can figure out the url to the iso's based on the url to 7.10 ;) Andareed (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The official iso files for ubuntu 8.04 will be at http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/hardy/, once they get there, it is officialy out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SF007 (talk • contribs)

Screenshots
Is looking at wallpapers the most exciting thing you can do with Ubuntu? Can we have some more interesting stuff please? Thanks. 210.131.216.139 (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the point is to demonstrate the operating system without a lot of clutter and distraction. Doing something like making a animated gif of compiz spinning would distract from that, as would cluttering the desktop with windows that are, in reality, not part of the OS but programs that run on top of it. --Falcorian (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't "demonstrate the operating system". It demonstrates the default wallpaper. (Gnome Panel is practically invisible at article screenshot size).  Are you arguing that the default wallpaper is a more fundamental part of the operating system that, say, Nautilus?  Your objection that additional windows are "not part of the OS but programs that run on top of it" is only true if you equate "the OS" with the Linux kernel rather than the whole distro, which, given the context of a screenshot, would be an odd definition, since there's no such thing as a screenshot of the kernel.  -- simxp (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Screenshots of OSs are always hard, because you want to demonstrate what the OS can do, but want to have a way to to them all justice. From a UI perspective, there isn't much of a difference with Ubuntu vs. Debian + GNOME execpt skins and some extra packages, at least not a difference that can be shown through a screenshot (like usability, etc). ff m  00:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only solution for the problem is to stop using "Operating System" term wrong from complete software system and distribution like Ubuntu. It is impossible to get screenshot of Linux operating system. Only a screenhots from applications like CLI (bash, zsh, sh etc) or GUI (Gnome, KDE, XFCE, Blackbox) and all those screenshots just shows the applications, not the Operating System. The wallpaper can only tell the user how does system default desktop look = what wallpaper it has, what icons and GUI styles it use etc. Thats why those screenshots should not be used when talking about Operating System because then it is about showing other applications what ain't part of the Operating System. Microsoft Windows has different case because Microsoft has integrated the Window Manager as part of Operating System, this actually difference from different Windows/NT versions. If we want to show what Linux can "do" (run), we need to show screenshots of KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Blackbox etc. And still we are just showing those graphical interface systems what can be run on other Operating Systems too like OpenBSD, OpenSolaris and FreeBSD, not only on Linux. Golftheman (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Mark Shuttleworth has said on various occasions that he considers Ubuntu to be an operating system and Linux to be an implementation detail. Let's not complicate things for readers by assuming they're in the 1% of people who care what a window manager is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Having respect for the words of that man is almost like having respect for Bill Gates for having the most users of an OS... IE, TOTALLY irrelevant. It is that very attitude that means thousands of what WERE good Debian packages are now totally broken in screwbuntu UNLESS you use the distro as they intend. Then it works flawlessly for a bunch of ignorant users. At the end of the day, "operating system" meant as "gui" is a misuse of a term. Just like open source applied to code that is world readable, but copyrighted and patented is a misnomer too. Those words were clearly intended for marketing purposes only. After all, he does have a company to run that depends on the success of screwbuntu. Either that or he is deluded as his devs some of which can't properly construct a sentence in the English language and are writing documentation in that language for screwbuntu. Yes, I sound pissed off because I am ;-) two weeks of screwbuntu have nearly driven me firmly back to Slackware after 7 years of Debian usage. It simply isn't possible to get a decent non buggy, non automated system solely by manipulating packages and config with apt and vi respectively. Many packages are broken and spew vile messages to the command line when they should be silent and not patched to be attempting to do what they are complaining about. Thumbs down to screwbuntu! Popularity is not a good measure of success of a software product. I'm ashamed to have recommended it to so many people. Fredio54 (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Subproject Wording in lead
"Kubuntu, Edubuntu, and Xubuntu are official subprojects of the Ubuntu project, aiming to bring the KDE and Xfce desktop environments, respectively, to the Ubuntu core (by default Ubuntu uses GNOME for its desktop environment)."
 * This reads wrong, and says that Edubuntu uses XFCE. Any idea how to best word it? ff m  23:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed "Edubuntu,", since Edubuntu is mentioned as an official sub-project in the next sentence. Andareed (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Article title (again...)
The article has been renamed around 2 weeks ago by SF007. This subject has already been discussed previously, see I don't know what you think of it, but if do you want to keep the new title, then there is more than 50 double-redirects that will need to be fixed and talk page archive will need to be moved (from 1 to 7). 16@r (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk:Ubuntu (Linux distribution)/Archive 1
 * Talk:Ubuntu (Linux distribution)/Archive 4
 * I fixed the archives, doubles fixed by bots. ff m  00:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and there is discussion to move it to Ubuntu. Oh yay. ff m  00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion was closed, we're now at Ubuntu. ff m  16:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Got a link to it, I seem to have missed it completely... --Falcorian (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * here you go! ff m  19:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dapper?
What's with the redirect from 'dapper'? I 'wikipedia:ed' the word dapper and came here, which is not at all what I was looknig for. Sure enough, a word definition belongs to wiktionary, but I'd say it's a long strech to say that 'dapper' automatically means an Ubuntu distribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.240.2 (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and wouldn't have an entry for an adjective like "Dapper". Unless you're suggesting that all non-articles in Wikipedia should redirect to the definition in Wikitionary -- which is a bad idea for a number of reasons -- you want http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dapper.  -- simxp (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added links to the respective dictionary definitions as a hatnote. ff m  00:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why "hardy" redirects here, either. In fact, I've never seen an article that wants to lay claim to like ten adjectives as though this is really the most popular use of the terminology. --  Randall00  Talk 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's done because there's no other articles that use it. If there was, we'd change the redirect and add a hatnote to the top of the article. However, there's nothing else of note called hardy. ff m  17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

CD image + Installer image
I've merged the "Installer" section into the "features" section, but now I've noticed something else; the image of the cd is totally out of place. It belongs in the Installer section, but the area there already has too many pictures. Any one have any idea on how to balance them out? ff m  21:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just took the releases out of the table and now we may even be more cluttered. I think we should create a flow chart for how the article should be laid out. I'll work on one when I have time Altonbr (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its much nicer now, if only we could hide the "features" subsections. ff m  21:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Release History Image
Anyone see the release history chart for Ubuntu, straight from Canonical and Mark Shuttleworth's blog: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/ubuntu-release-cycle.png Altonbr (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll ask him to release it under a free license. ff m  16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any update on this? Altonbr (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Releases for split?
This is a long, not prose section in the middle of the article. I think it'd be better on a subpage, or rewritten with prose in mind. Thoughts? --Falcorian (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started prosing the sections. I'll work more and clean it up tomorrow. --Falcorian (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Server CD and Network CD
I think these sections should be resplit, or they should be merged in with all the alternate install forms. As it stands, you have an arbitrary combination, as the Network CD and the serve CD have nothing in common other than not being the standard install method (and of course, the alternate CD is still in its own section...). --Falcorian (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've resplit them. Lumping them together is quite arbitrary as they have no unique unifying feature to justify it (their both GUI-less, but so is the alternate CD which is not included...). --Falcorian (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reaction to Ubuntu
I've seen plenty of criticism of Ubuntu and its stability(more specifically, the lack thereof), yet this article makes it seem like everybody loves it. Shouldn't it reflect the negative opinions as well?BioTube (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Feel free to add a section if you like.  miranda   22:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, but only if you can find some good references -- i.e. not just forum threads, see WP:RS -- for any stability issues. Also, try and integrate any criticism into the text, e.g. you could put it in the "Response" section, rather than creating a new "Criticism" section -- those tend to just end up as troll magents (see WP:CRIT). -- simxp (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for help from the Ubuntu forum in coming up with critical reviews from reliable sources, hopefully some will come through. I'll throw them on the list below as they come in. --Falcorian (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Sources for Critical Responces

 * Rant about installing programs -- Not sure how reputable blorge is, also he pretty much ignores that .debs are double click installs that do everything he actually requests. But it's a start I guess. --Falcorian (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really think it's a reliable source, plus, its a year old. ff m 
 * Ars review of Hardy -- They don't like the BT client, tracker, or pulse audio. --Falcorian (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Legality of Ubuntu
I have once again removed this section. This section is not appropriate for the Ubuntu page because it deals with complaints that can be leveled against multiple opperating systems, not just Linux, and not just Ubuntu. A more appropriate place for the comments would be: Linux, Linux Kernel, Operating System, or Software patents. --Falcorian (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Prose Fixes Needed
The GA reviewer has asked that the prose in the Package classification and support section be fixed. If others could have a look at it, that'd be great! I'll look over it as well. I'd also like someone to give the Alternate Installation a look over and copy edit, as I massed it together earlier. Thanks! --Falcorian (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

8.10 Screenshots?
I was wondering if we should include a 8.10 screenshot after every alpha (alpha1, alpha2, etc.) until its release. I used to be against this, but it'd be interesting to show progression, especially since 8.10 is already working on a new theme: http://phorolinux.com/ubuntu-810-intrepid-ibex-alpha-1-screenshots.html. If this idea is accepted, I'll take my own screenshots. Altonbr (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a screenshot of it myself last night. Hope it suffices. Eli Loewen (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Redo Screenshots?
I took the screenshots for 5.04 to 7.10 (using VMware) and they're all the default desktop at 1280x1024. This doesn't "show off" enough of Ubuntu or it's progression (especially in regards to the theme). I have no problem go back through from 5.04 to 8.10 (sorry, 4.10 and XFree86 won't work in VMware (as far as I know)) and reworking the screenshots, so long as we come up with what should be 'standard'. Shall we say 800x600 with the 'About Ubuntu' window open?Altonbr (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm redoing all the screenshots with the following specs
 * Installed, not a LiveCD (username = 'user' @ host = 'ubuntu')
 * 800x600 to show the GNOME panels better
 * Home folder open and centred (this will showcase the theme)
 * Please speak now or forever hold your peace. I'm starting with 4.10 and working my way up. Altonbr (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The new screenshots look great; excellent job! -- simxp (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion
I just wanted to inform anyone interested that the image of Xubuntu is up for deletion in commons because there are tiny "non-free" logos in the screenshot. If someone wants to voice their opinion, just go to I noticed that when someone pixelated the ubuntu image, it was reverted under the claim it was "non-representative of the software", and I think this is the again a similar case (or worse, since they just want to delete it!) PS: sorry for the possible "off-topic"... SF007 (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BestBuy retail
http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/07/08/pictures-and-details-of-ubuntu-in-best-buy/ --Kozuch (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Gobuntu Discontinued after 8.04
According to Jono Bacon on the Gobuntu mailing list, Gobuntu will be merged with mainstream Ubuntu after 8.04 (8.10 Intrepid Ibex) in the form of a 'free-software only' option: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gobuntu-devel/2008-June/000795.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altonbr (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Shorten the article... less like a manual...
The article over time has expanded beyond encyclopedic and needs to be written less like a manual of operation... --Pmedema (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? --Falcorian (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This article has had thousands of edits and reviews by hundreds of people. Recently, Falcorian and I have added much to the content and fullness of this article. In no way is this article and advertisement or a manual as it has very similar content to any other operating system article. I'm removing your warning as I am taking this in offense, but will not be marking it as spam. You may put those warning back up when there is a general consensus that this article is a manual and/or an advertisement. Even then, we will do everything in our power to unmark this article as such, so there is no need for the explicit warning. Discussion is always more noble and polite, please remember that. Altonbr (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

8.10 Alpha 3
Alpha 3 is out. There's also stuff missing about Alpha 2. Can anyone add? (Geekening (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "shipit" :
 * "ServerGuide710" :
 * }
 * "components" :
 * "history" :
 * }
 * "components" :
 * "history" :
 * "history" :
 * "history" :

Widescreen Support
Ever since 7.10 or 8.04, Ubuntu can handle Widescreen graphics, causing screen fonts, etc. to not blur. However, these settings still aren't choosable via the display configuration. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh no, Ubuntu had supported wide screen all along. It's whether it could detect the proper resolution that prevented earlier releases to get the correct resolution in the first go. --antilivedT 08:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And to futher note, I was using Intel GMA Onboard Graphics. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Releases should be a sub-article
The releases section is getting really long, and will only get worse. We should just mention the most important releases and then link to a full article. Scott Ritchie (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I collected most of the facts for each version - 4.10 to 8.04 - (not that anyone else couldn't do it), including producing multiple versions of screenshots in VMware, and I just don't think we have enough content for separate articles. You can't hardly talk as much about Ubuntu 6.06 or Ubuntu 8.10 as you can with Windows XP or Windows Vista. Ubuntu is more of a collection of all the work open source software (and thus programmers) have done on a six month cycle. We can't just talk about how GNOME was bumped to 2.22 and that the kernel is now 2.6.xx, there just isn't enough material. Once Ubuntu makes more of an impact on the world and has more news articles to reference, I just don't think we can create separate articles for each Ubutnu release. PS: I thought I recognized your name and sure enough, you do packaging for Wine on Ubuntu. Keep up to good work! I use your packages daily! Altonbr (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about making an article with all the releases of Ubuntu? I think it should be the best solution, this article should be forked, it is already very big... An we shoul just keep here a list of major changes of releases (NTFS support, Wubi, etc...)SF007 (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)