Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 5

message: I hadn't read the reference properly. --Guinnog 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks for reverting

message: Removed section:
:Ubuntu 6.06 LTS was released including GNOME 2.14.0, Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.3, OpenOffice.org 2.0.2, X.Org Server 7.0, GCC 4.0.3, and version 2.6.15 of the Linux kernel. Several packages were upgraded for the first maintenance release on 10 August 2006.
Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: Edgy is released few days ago so I've made a screenshot, and uploaded it to Commons at . It is 800x600 and shows the same things that the Samsara's Dapper_with_apps.jpg contained. --Emx 07:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks ;) Also, I've changed updated the screenshots on all the wikis that have the Ubuntu article, so those don't show Dapper anymore. --Emx 10:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot 

message: Some hefty criticism was posted on Slashdot today. It contains a bunch of links to stories that explain upgrade problems to 6.10 (isn't it so that the official name is 6.10, and not "edgy eft", which is supposed to be somewhat internal, by the way?) Since this article doesn't have a criticism section yet (and it really should, seen as how it aims to be a featured article), I think this will be useful. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 10:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was featured article. I agree that there should be criticism section, but that should be verifiable. I also heard that there were some minor problems from upgrading Dapper to Edgy using network repositories or alternate CD, though. 6.10 or Edgy Eft - it's all the same, though Edgy Eft (or Edgy) is just a code name. --Emx 10:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still a featured article while the review is going on. I don't know where you get the idea, Msikma, that all featured articles need to have a criticism section. Write sections that are about something, not just sections that are something. If you have some aspect that you feel isn't covered, bring it up, but don't just go, "oh, there should be a criticism section, 'cause like, I don't know". Windows 2000 is a featured article without any explicit criticism section. It does have a section on security flaws, however - see what I mean? Tell us what the criticisms are, e.g. there could be a section "upgrade problems". We should keep in mind that Efty is one of two releases that are currently supported, so its contribution to the article should perhaps be somewhat more than half. Alternatively we could decide to have a separate article on the LTS release and any future LTS ones. However, there is no precedent of this in, e.g. Red Hat Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux or SUSE Linux articles; Mac OS X, on the other hand, does have them. It all depends on how much material we can maintain to a reasonable standard. Even if you were to create a section about the upgrade problems, though, I don't think slashdot or the forum are reliable sources on this, not least because people always encounter problems on upgrade, with any product. Let us know when you can find something more substantial. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I think that those "criticisms" and similar things should not be in the article, because most of them are about Edgy Eft release which has not LTS (Long Term Support) in duration of 3 years on desktop, like Dapper Drake. Edgy Eft is just upgraded Dapper which should be used by more experienced users. Dapper Drake is almost perfect (for me), despite I use Edgy too. If there would be enough material about Edgy Eft, we can make an article; why not? --Emx 16:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've inserted appropriate links into the article. If you want to start the new branch articles, please do so at Ubuntu v6.06 LTS and Ubuntu v6.10. It's a pleasure working with you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: While I agree that Dapper and Edgy are arguably notable enough to get their own articles, I'm not sure why it's necessary at this point. Do we have enough material for each release article to stand alone, without duplicating much of the parent article? Maybe we should just create release subsections in this article. Twinxor t 22:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as we can keep the article well-organised. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The criticism has been countered by developers who point out that most of the upgrade problems have been caused by people with unofficial packages. See eg  and  Secretlondon 05:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has there been any official statement that Edgy shouldn't be used in production? Shuttleworth suggested as much, but I haven't seen it anywhere else. Twinxor t 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No there hasn't. Note that you can purchase support for edgy from Canonical, and that it is supported for as long as the pre-Dapper releases were. dsas 15:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: On the point of a 'criticism' section. Why should it be a specific section dedicated to it? Why shouldn't any criticism be weaved throughout the article where each criticism is relevant? Splitting the article into a 'pro' and 'anti' style damages readbility, attracks fanboys and trolls and can lead to POV forks.-Localzuk(talk) 09:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my point, thank you! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People on IRC are saying that the Dapper is better than Edgy because it has LTS and many more things; i have some IRC logs directly from #ubuntu if you want - those are the statements about Edgy, Twinxor. --Emx 13:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look at our policy on verifiability. Sources have to be peer reviewed or high quality journalistic sources .-Localzuk(talk) 13:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I know that, maybe the things that Seveas said on IRC could be important? He's doing very much for Ubuntu and is one of the operators on the channel. --Emx 14:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chatlogs can't really be referenced, so I think they're out. In my draft section, I propose a paragraph mentioning the reports of upgrade problems, which can be substantiated somewhat. But we've had some discussion about this, and it isn't clear that there's a lot of substantial criticism going around, so we want to be careful not to blow it out of proportion -- see false balance. Twinxor t 15:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Efty criticism 

message: I made a temporary subpage with subsections for the versions. It's not done yet (needs references, for one), but this is how I think the section should look, now that there are two "live" versions of Ubuntu. Does this look reasonable? Twinxor t 02:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are more than two "live" versions of Ubuntu as they come out every 6 months. Breezy Badger is still supported, and Hoary Hedgehog will be until the end of Oct 06. Secretlondon 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could do a series of them, as in Mac OS X#Timeline of Apple Macintosh operating systems. There wouldn't be much to go on for each section, though - the releases did not have many major changes. Twinxor t 05:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. Twinxor t 00:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Releases section 

message: I think that there shouldn't be so many subheadings, since they are short and such subheadings are not needed. --Emx 07:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Chris Cunningham 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subheadings 

message: Why wasn't the featured article review posted on this page so other editors could see it too? I'm a bit worried that a page can be reviewed for a month and only a couple of editors who take part in editing it seem to know about it... -Localzuk(talk) 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was posted. The FAR template was at the top of this talk page. Joelito (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Someone put it in the middle of the rest until 5 days ago when it was moved. Must have slipped me by.-Localzuk(talk) 00:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: I changed a lot of the article's wording, removed some of the cruft and fixed some grammatical errors. I won't deny that slashdot.org is a good source for Edgy upgrade troubles, but I don't believe it needs to be elaborated to such length within the actual article, just a mention with a reference is sufficient. Also, I could be wrong, but hasn't support for Grumpy and Hoary lapsed? If not, feel free to revert that, but I thought it was silly to have those under the heading of "Currently Supported Releases", even if they were tagged as obsolete. Another thing: corporations, companies and organizations should be referred to as one thing, as they refer to one group of people rather than many people, so I fixed many references to Canonical and Google as plural. The structure of the article itself is still a bit messy and unorganized and the response section still needs expansion, but I've done all I can for today. Feel free to help out, of course. Issue with anything else I changed can be taken here, or just change things back if you'd like. I ask that you post your reasons here, though, just out of courtesy. Thanks! -mushroom 04:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure that you know what you're doing? Because I've seen a lot of copyeditors pass by who think they're doing a useful job, but were completely oblivious to having changed the meaning of sentences. For starters, Grumpy isn't an actual release - you mean Warty. On the copyediting, can you tell me what the difference is between "Ubuntu packages are generally based on packages from Debian's unstable set of packages." and "Ubuntu packages are generally drawn from from Debian's unstable repository"? Can you relate this to the statement "A lot has been said about the fact that Debian is not binary-compatible with Ubuntu." ? If you can't, then I'd suggest a revert wiki-wiki. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, yeah, Warty. Sorry, heh. As for the paragraph dealing with package compatibility, I was trying to decrease the amount of times the word "package" is repeated, but you bring up a good point, so I've changed it again. -mushroom 05:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You missed one use of the plural for companies. This is actually the right way to do it in UK English, and I've fought against piecemeal changes to it so far, but you were pretty diligent about it so the least-resistance path is oviously to go with the singular version now. Thanks for working on this, nice to see not everyone has been intimidated off of editing it yet. Chris Cunningham 13:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various changes 

message: Although there is lots of documentation and forums to help newbies with Ubuntu much of it is written in techtalk, so I found myself referring to Wikipaedia for some basics. These articles on each version of Ubuntu are good introductory articles, and I'm not prepared to edit them. However, there are a set of Wiki type pages that I came across completely by accident, and nothing (in Ubuntu world) seems to point to them. For me they have been a real sanity saver, and I'm suggesting that a more experienced WIKI editor include a pointer to them in the articles. They are:
http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy  and 
http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_dapper
Of all the online help I've found these are absolutely in the top cluster.
D.Tzumli 05:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a portal for guidebooks. ubuntuguide is a collection of instructions to carry out common tasks, not "introductory articles". The best place to link these guides from would be wikibooks. Chris Cunningham 11:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a link to http://ubuntuguide.org in the external links section. It has been there for a few weeks now. --Benjaminevans82 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting help with Ubuntu 

message: Hi, I've made some experiencies with videos with Ubuntu "screenshots" and I would like to propose it's inclusion in the article.
This is a first "alpha release" of the video, and I'm sure we can improve it. Any ideas ? --OsvaldoGago 20:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I enjoyed it, thank you! quercus robur 17:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The video is excellent, but is there any chance it could be a little shorter? --Benjaminevans82 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe split it into a number of smaller movies? quercus robur 12:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you think of a movie with Aplications and another movie with menus + system preferences + administration ? --OsvaldoGago 21:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peek into Ubuntu: Video 

message: According to WP:FA and WP:GA, this article isn't even GA! As I know, it was FA, but what happened? --Emx 21:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened? 

message: "Current Ubuntu LTS release 6.06 requires 256 megabytes of RAM, and, when installed to the hard disk, recommends at least three gigabytes of hard-disk space" 
 (64MB RAM, 1GB HDD),  (<=192MB of RAM).
--Haham hanuka 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: System requirements would seem to be very basic info about the OS. I fail to see why it was removed from the article, and support it being put back in. Nearly every piece of info about Ubuntu can be found on the Ubuntu wiki, and we should use it as a source, but that doesn't mean we can't have an encyclopedia article that includes basic facts. Dovi 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should write about it. The problem is that the first link contradicts the others. --Haham hanuka 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored it and edited it with more info and a link to the relevant bit of Ubuntu.com Man with two legs 13:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  System Requirements 

message: I'd like to color-differentiate between supported and unsuported releases, but I'm not that hot with wiki tabling.~ender 2007-01-20 09:03:AM MST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.171.226 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table on Releases 

message: How about Ubuntu Studio, is there a page on this or is this going to be integrated on this page?
See http://ubuntustudio.org/
JackBaine 18:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll get its own article, like the other third-party forks. Might be best to wait till it's actually released, so there will be something to write about. Twinxor t 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ubuntu Studio ? 

message: ponunciation: /ubun'tu/, pronounced like oo-BOON-too
is the stress on the last syllable or on the middle one? These pieces of information contradict each other.
--142.108.107.36 15:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember reading somewhere fairly official (sorry, can't think of where right now) that the official pronunciation was oo-BUN-too, like delicious buns. Maybe try ubuntu.com for info? Stale Fries taste better 01:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also remenmer reading that somewhere official recently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flutefluteflute (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It says it is "oo-BOON-too" in the 'about ubuntu' window INSIDE the linux distro (at least in 6.10). i can't read IPA, but the current IPA at the top of the page seems to be the common mispronunciation you-bun-too. Ubuntu has that page in it specifically because of this mispronuncuation and it IS in actual fact oo-boon-too. Ubuntu (ideology) says the ideology is "pronounced /ùbúntú/" and the page inside the distro says its pronounced the same as the ideology, although whether 'ùbúntú' is the same as oo-boon-too or not, i don't know.--KX36 16:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely pronounced oo-BOON-too by the core team (of which I was a member) which, as far as I know, is how the term for the ideology pronounced. —mako (talk•contribs) 23:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The ideology is pronounced ooBOONtoo, also. Take a look at the Nelson Mandela video in the examples folder of the live CD (6.06 -> forward) Peteturtle 12:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: direct contradiction

message: The article doesn't state whether Ubuntu is a LiveDistro or not. Here, it is listed as one, but the article doesn't mention anything on the subject. Is it, or is it not? --Chatzaras 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is both a livedistro and an installed distro - but on the same cd. This is covered in the 'Distribution' section in the article.-Localzuk(talk) 19:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LiveDistro or not? 

message: The newest on is 6.10 right? The lastest one that u can get sjipped for free is 6.06 (dapper drake), so thats still pretty new right? RealG187 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. But why the question?-Localzuk(talk) 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. The names are codenames and the numbers are the official release titles/version numbers.-Localzuk(talk) 21:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind that this page is not a technical support forum. For that I recommend the official forums. --Strangnet 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I linked to ubuntuforums.org for you :) Stale Fries taste better 01:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newest one? 

message: info must be added
24.160.145.3 23:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then add it - this is a wiki :) - Davidjk (msg+edits) 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added some brief notes and cites on Feisty. I'm not familiar with the cite format we're using here. Apparently the cites are functional but not pretty. Can anybody please tweak? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FEISTY FAWN 

message: I was always under the impression that this was a fork of Ubuntu, not a Canicoal/Shuttleworth endorsed version: it has no ubuntu branding or such. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the article suggests that gNewSense is an offical ubuntu derivitve. 
--Gunny01 01:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Features of gNewsense gNewSense is derived from Ubuntu, and thus has most of the same functionality. There are a number of differences though. (...) and fse article --OsvaldoGago 17:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: gNewSense is a derivative of Ubuntu but it is not sponsored or supported in any by Canonical. —mako (talk•contribs) 17:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So only Mark Shuttleworth from Canonical is connected with gNewSense? There is no direct relationship like Canonical and gNewSense? --Emx 19:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope. I'm rewording it. --Gunny01 02:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  gNewSense 

message: Due to its ease of use, it is considered by many to be a great "beginner" distribution of Linux.
This sounds awfully weaselly to me, and I've marked it as such. Exactly who considers Ubuntu good for beginners? If we can't find a source for this, it should be removed. (I'm 203.51.53.175, by the way--I forgot to sign in before editing the article.) --Lumina83 09:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remove it. Jimbo has explicitly condoned direct removal of this kind of commentary. Chris Cunningham 10:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words in opening section