Template talk:Ubuntu

message: The important distinction is not whether the projects are run by Canonical or external but whether they are contained within the Ubuntu distribution. I've used the term "partner project" in the Official Ubuntu book so I think it's as good a term as other. I'll update this here but if someone has a better idea, please make the change or discuss it here. —mako (talk•contribs) 15:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonical/External 

message: Linspire and Freespire are based on Ubuntu or are in the process of being moved to an Ubuntu base and they belong in the list of External projects. I'm going to revert the edit by User:Flutefluteflute accordingly. Linspire has the same relation to Ubuntu as, say, Impilinux and it seems incorrect to categorize either relationship as "unofficial." They are derivatives outside of the company and are done in partnership with Canonical. Unofficial sounds like it's unblessed or without permission, which is not the case at all. mako (talk•contribs) 17:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will remove OpenCD though, because that is not really an external project. mako (talk•contribs) 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linspire/Freespire 

message: OK, thanks for making it clear why you reverted. However, there is no evidence Studio is an 'internal' release so I am going to move it to the external list.-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 16:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ubuntu Studio is internal. Please see its wiki page (on the official Ubuntu wiki) with links to its mailing lists, IRC channel, specifications, Launchpad team and more. All these are hosted at Ubuntu, by Ubuntu, and are quite clearly internal. UbuntuStudio is doing package selection and is similar to Kubuntu or Xubuntu. It is not an external project. It is also not finished. That might be a reason to not include it but it certainly doesn't belong in the External list. mako (talk•contribs) 17:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now Ubuntu Studio is 'out' I'd like to readresse this issue. I admit the mailing is odd, but the IRC is not provied by Ubuntu. Launchpad can be used by any project including ones in no way related to Ubuntu (i.e. a Windows audio editor). The official Ubuntu main page has no link to Studio alomnside the K, X and Edu links. I also notice at the bottom of its site it says "Ubuntu Studio ©2007 Canonical Ltd." - However why has the site been down for some time? For the release of Ubuntu 7.04 the ubuntu.com site never went down for 3 days! It seems unlike Canonical. Plus the site is unlike those for the other official Ubuntu releases. -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone? -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 14:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ubuntu Studio

message: The "copland" link (first one of the "external" distribs) points to a disambiguation page, and I don't see any linux distro in the list.. What's up with that ?
FiP Как вы думаете? 12:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copland PPC. Removing. Chris Cunningham 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copland ? 

message: This new Ubuntu "flavour" has ben approved by Shuttleworth anmd is under development. It will feature the LXDE desktop. For background see this ref. This redlink should be left in the template to alert editors to create the article. Please see WP:redlink for more information. - Ahunt (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:NAVBOX: "Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first." Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input, Chris. I think in this case it can be assumed that an article will be forthcoming very soon, since there are sufficient refs to create one and the editors who commonly work on the Ubuntu articles don't let much slip by. While normally the article is written first and then entered in the nav box it was my thought that putting it into the template might speed up the production of this article. Either way I expect the article will be posted in the very near future and will be entered in the template at that time, it the link isn't still there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to save the need for any further discussion I created the article. Hopefully now others will improve it! - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lubuntu is not yet an official derivative. On their website it says, "The lubuntu team aims to earn official endorsement from Canonical". As well, it is not listed on the Ubuntu derivatives page: http://www.ubuntu.com/project/derivatives  — Preceding unsigned comment added by InverseHypercube (talk • contribs) 05:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true, it isn't, although it will probably be so in April with the release of 11.04. - Ahunt (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lubuntu

message: In my opinion, software that is no longer in the distro should not be in the template. What is possibly significant or useful about including GDebi in the template, when it has been totally obsoleted by Ubuntu Software Center? Perhaps if it was a large part of the Ubuntu's history, or something to that effect, it would be worth including, but I don't see how having old software cluttering the template is useful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by InverseHypercube (talk • contribs) 05:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of what Wikipedia documents is history, many articles are nothing but history, and this template indicates all articles that have ties to the story of Ubuntu. By your argument  List of Ubuntu releases should only have the present release and perhaps the most recent LTS release on it as the rest are no longer available. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not what I'm saying. I do think that software like GDebi, which is not significant to the distribution in any sense, should be removed from the template if obsoleted. What makes it relevant to Ubuntu history as a whole? Software gets replaced, and if the template were to list every piece of obsoleted software it would be very long indeed. InverseHypercube (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Gdebi has been an integral part of Ubuntu software management from the start until quite recently, but if you don't think it is justified leaving it on the list then go ahead and remove it again. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's get some other editors' opinions. InverseHypercube (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good! - Ahunt (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old software 

message: I don't think Icaza think the same.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.30.10.105 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nautilus developed by cannonical? 

message: Unofficial Derivative is far from neutral language and it only seems to come up on wikipedia in relation to Ubuntu. It's not mentioned that Ubuntu is an unofficial derivative of Debian or that Yellow Dog Linux is an unofficial derivative of Fedora. There is no requirement that a distro receive an official support from another distro. The language should be changed. Perhaps to third party or other. I'll go with other. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the link is to "third party", that would be less of an Easter egg and also more descriptive than "other". - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are right. Thanks.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Ahunt (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial doesn't seem neutral 

message: The link Ubuntu TV simply links to one line in a table in the article Ubuntu. Considering that the project did not materialise to much and there is not even a full section about it in an article, does it warrant having a link in the template?
Betsar (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree,  - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ubuntu TV 

message: This is listed as discontinued in the template, but it's still being developed for Ubuntu-based IoT use (as the Mir article also mentions).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:578:85FD:500:3A:9F74:E6B9:2EEF (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite correct. Thanks for bringing it up,  - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mir Display Server