Talk:Xubuntu

message: I'm making the article avoid saying that Ubuntu Lite is an "unofficial project" again. If Ubuntu Lite is unofficial in some way, please mention in what perspective when readding the information.--Chealer 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and Edubuntu are all official sub projects of the Ubuntu Project, and so are sponsored by Canonical Ltd. (see Ubuntu (Linux distribution) and Ubuntu.com). Ubuntu Lite is an independent project that uses Ubuntu as a base. It is therefore unofficial. The Ubuntu and Ubuntu Lite wiki pages already say this without needing explanation. There was a sentence on how Ubuntu Lite was unofficial because it was not sponsored by Canonical, but it was removed (by you).LadyPhi 15:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unofficial project

message: I have removed the comment stating 'or Debian' as Ubuntu, and then Xubuntu are derivatives of Debian Sid and are no longer part of the debian tree. They are a seperate distrobution and as such comments such as that are not needed.-localzuk 22:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debian 

message: I moved the 2 following sections here. "Desktop CD" reads like an advertisement. "Alternate install CD" goes IMO into too much details. This content seems more appropriate for Xubuntu's website.--Chealer 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved sections 

message: Can someone explain the supposedly-IPA pronunciation "/ˈzùbúntú/"?  I can't find "ù" or "ú" in the IPA charts.  I would've expected something more like /zuˈbəntu/ or /zuˈbuntu/, but in any case it doesn't seem to be IPA as written. —Eric S. Smith 21:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's perfectly valid IPA, indicating tone. 68.48.168.53 23:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[IPA]] pronunciation? 

message: What happened to xubuntu.info? It doesn't seem to be around anymore. Jorophose 01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xubuntu.info - Gone? 

message: Who says so? do you have a source for that claim? why it isn't as simple as x ubuntu?..one audio recording will suffice..remove that line till you get the official pronunciation..what about ubuntu alone..how it is said?--Alnokta 19:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The project founder is Jani Monoses, see https://launchpad.net/~jani. --Vincent (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pronounced like su-boon-too" 

message: I just wanted to inform anyone interested that the image used in this article 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 here. SF007 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image deletion 

message: The memory requirements listed in the article do not match those given by the Xubuntu website (). 
The article currently claims more memory is needed than Xubuntu says.  While as a user, I would tend to agree with the article's advice, the inconsistency is troubling.  I'm not changing this automatically in case there is other (unlinkked) documentation that confirms the article.
Vegipowrd (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sourced, you can check where the information came from, and it supports the current version. --Falcorian (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Does Xubuntu actually use significantly fewer resources?  If Ubuntu and Xubuntu differ only in their desktop environment, does not that mean that 90% of the "programs/code/et al" used with either are the same?  Does anyone have benchmark results we can put in a citation?  This forum post also expresses my opinion well: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/ubuntu-vs.-xubuntu-questions-505390/#post2520763--ScarySquirrel (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ask here. --wL<speak·check> 13:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I actually removed that POV statement. The article they link too didn't prove anything. As to benchmarks, do like I did when I was shopping around for my primary flavor. I'm a minimalist, but require a modern interface. I used by VirtualBox and installed a variety of flavors from Ubuntu to FreeBSD to OpenSuse and installed the Xfce equivalents so for instance Ubuntu I would install Xubuntu. Anyway, to get to the point, when I ran my tests and compared their resource usage using both top and the resource app (which itself skews results especially for memory comparisons; meaning that top is the best measure) you will find about 100 MB difference in memory usage between Ubuntu and Xubuntu which comes from the terminal app. This is massively significant. Like some other people have said, about 90% (actually greater for memory) or so of the resource usage between the two will be the same as all you are doing is choosing a different desktop terminal. Everything else for the most part is the same. But like I said, I'm a minimalist and purist so I don't like to waste resources so for me 100MB is significant even though the percent change might be modest. For those of you who do not want to install a bunch of flavors to test, whichever one you do have simply install the different desktop terminals. At login you then choose which one to go with so you will cause no permanent damage to your system other than some hard drive space being taken up, but that is insignificant too. Go to terminal and then type in top and compare the results. This doesn't require any installation nor rebooting, only a minute or so of logging in and out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.226.124 (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored the deleted text, please us an edit summary when you remove or add text. The reference article cited meets the requirements of WP:RS whereas what you have indicated here is WP:OR. If you want to change this then if you can cite a reference showing disagreement or controversy then that can be added, but there is no reason to remove the text and ref at this point. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory Requirements 

message: The internal link to Linux Mint has be re-added at the bottom of the article.I have the feeling some folks trying to promote "their" distribution in certain articles.I am not saying this is the case here but still I do not see any relevance for that link.
There's also a Debian CD which installs Xfce by default. Many other Xfce-based distributions exist (sidux has one as well as Mandriva, Dreamlinux and VectorLinux are specifically designed to work with Xfce etc.).Being ANOTHER Ubuntu-based distributions featuring Xfce, makes LinuxMint even less notable for the article.
The link could be replaced with: List of Ubuntu-based distributions  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.72.180 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it back in there, but I have no connection to Mint personally - don't use it myself, I use Ubuntu. It's connection to Xubuntu is that it is Ubuntu-based and runs Xfce. I agree that a list of Ubuntu-based distros that have Xfce is probably worthwhile adding, perhaps as a Nav box rather than a list?  - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally there is a list of Xfce distros at Xfce#Prevalence, perhaps this would be a basis for a nav box? - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay - done - have a look!! - Ahunt (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Linux Mint 

message: Sorry to beat what some may see as a dead horse but I found the presentation of information in the Goals section to be unsatisfactory. In particular the final paragraph had three quotes all taken from reviews of Lubuntu that seem to be cherry-picked for their strongly negative wording. 
The first quote makes it appear that the Doru Barbu is the one asserting that Xubuntu fails to be lightweight, even though, when one looks at the full sentence ("The developers claim that, while Xubuntu is often represented as a lightweight distro, it actually fails to run on older hardware, so they are targeting their Linux distribution at older legacy computers and devices with less than 256 MB of RAM."), Barbu is actually reporting that the Lubuntu developers are the ones asserting this claim.
The second quote refers to recent benchmarks and drops the link from the words "sometimes even more so!" When one follows the link, it is in fact the very same testing done by Linux Magazine already mentioned in the prior paragraph. To include this quote is almost like using the same information twice but presenting it as if it were two opinions that were derived independently from each other.
So what I've done is remove the first two quotes but left the citations, while changing the paragraph's lead sentence and keeping the third quote as an example of what reviewers of Lubuntu have been saying. I believe this more honestly presents the issue of Xubuntu's deficiencies.Whitejay251 07:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes look fine, it still conveys the points the reviewers made. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I removed quotations 

message: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/Specifications/Intrepid/StrategyDocument#Mission%20Statement הוי ארצי (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup you are right. I Dead link tagged it, as I could not find it on Archive.org. - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link in the article 

message: I reverted this edit for a number of reasons, but I wanted to give an explanation on the talk page.  It appears to be promotional in nature, and is lacking in any third-party sources giving it any weight, and as the primary source is a blog, it isn't even a reliable source in its own right. - SudoGhost 17:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this needs a proper ref to be added. - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivative  

message: Added Lubuntu to see also since it has the same goal to be a light distro of Ubuntu, No idea why crunchbang is there as it is no longer based on Ubuntu. Derpian (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Lubuntu is linked in the text of the article, but it is high up, so okay to put in in the "see alsos as well. You can remove CrunchBang if you like, - Ahunt (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I'll keep Spri there since it's was the same goal as Ubuntu, a lightweight desktop with Ubuntu. Crunchbang used to be this but no longer. Derpian (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lubuntu 

message: I think there is way too much quoting of sources in the article. --Mortense (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying there are too many references or too many quotations? - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive quoting 

message: The article states, in part:
" This three year period is, like other Ubuntu derived releases such as Kubuntu and Edbuntu, two years shorter than Ubuntu's planned five year LTS period."
Actually, Kubuntu LTS's are supported for 5 years, just like Ubuntu.  (Xubuntu is still at 3 years, though.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.112.90 (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  support period 

message: Having used both Debian (with xfce and lightdm) and Ubuntu, and finding neither really satisfactory, I'm the sort of reader who naturally expects to find articles like this one useful.
But it isn't useful.
It has ten-year-old history in excruciating detail. OK, history has a place, but why such detail?
Then it presents arguments for/against Xubuntu, but they assume that memory requirement is the most important criterion. For me (and probably most users nowadays) it's irrelevant whether the OS that runs our multi-gigabyte desktops takes 256M or 512M. A bunch of other distros get mentioned in passing.
What I would really find useful is an article comparing the different distros; or at least an article comparing all the Debian-based distros with each other in some systematic way; because almost nobody is interested in Xubuntu in isolation. Somebody who comes to an article about Xubuntu is almost always trying to get an informed opinion as to whether he/she would like Xubuntu better than the alternatives. There is a Wikipedia article ostensibly addressing that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions) but actually it is quite useless for most users because most of the 70-odd distros - which are all presented on an equal basis - have too few users to find all the bugs, far too small user communities to discuss problems and fixes, and too small developer communities to do much about them. I doubt whether there are even 10 distros that are really "ready for prime time" (with enough users to expose the problems, a big enough active community to filter out the ones that are just misunderstandings, and enough developer commitment to do something about the real defects), let alone 70+. An article that focused on those - for most of us, the real candidates for real use - would be extremely valuable. Sayitclearly (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestions. This article is largely a history of Xubuntu and in that way is similar to the articles on Lubuntu and the List of Ubuntu releases. The sort of comparison article you are looking for really is not a topic for an encyclopedia, it is more the sort of thing you would expect in a tech press article. Here were are limited to facts that can be sourced to reliable references so unless someone in the tech press has written a comparison article that we can use as a reference, we can't make up our own comparison as they would be original research. The added problem, too is that even if someone in the tech press did write a comparison article, it would be valid for only single versions, ie Xunbuntu 16.04 vs other current distros. As soon as a new version came out the old comparison would only be useful historically. In short, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and what you are looking for is not the sort of topic that belongs in an encyclopedia. This is really more something you would find on http://distrowatch.com/ or similar sites.- Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: complete reorganisation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Xubuntu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120105034741/https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/OneiricOcelot/Final to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/OneiricOcelot/Final
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Xubuntu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928233851/http://www.xubuntu.org/glossary to http://www.xubuntu.org/glossary
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314081641/https://wiki.ubuntu.com/XubuntuDapperReleaseNotes to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/XubuntuDapperReleaseNotes
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721032805/http://www.reviewlinux.com/?m=show&id=5849 to http://www.reviewlinux.com/?m=show&id=5849
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721032745/http://www.reviewlinux.com/?m=show&id=7643 to http://www.reviewlinux.com/?m=show&id=7643
*Added  tag to http://www.zdnet.com/blog/education/xubuntu-804-stellar-on-low-power-machines/1656
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603234045/https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/LucidLynx/Final to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/LucidLynx/Final
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609221648/http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/2010/05/10/xubuntu-linux-10-04/ to http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/2010/05/10/xubuntu-linux-10-04/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603234222/https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/MaverickMeerkat/Final to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/MaverickMeerkat/Final
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130122030422/http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/2011/06/01/xubuntu-11-04/6/ to http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/2011/06/01/xubuntu-11-04/6/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622083826/http://www.xubuntu.org/get to http://www.xubuntu.org/get
*Added archive https://archive.is/20131030094454/http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/xubuntu-reviews/xubuntu-13-10/ to http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/xubuntu-reviews/xubuntu-13-10/
*Added  tag to http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/xubuntu-reviews/xubuntu-14-04-lts/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100430161612/http://www.pc-os.org/2010/03/pcos-openworkstation-101-gnome-released.html to http://www.pc-os.org/2010/03/pcos-openworkstation-101-gnome-released.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016164611/http://voyager.legtux.org/ to http://www.voyager.legtux.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So, they bullied me away, just like the other chap...
Anyway, to other editors, if they ever come here:
1) reference [21] doesn't link to the article it claims to link.
2) ...never mind, apparently nobody cares.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.241.133.37 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for some actual information . - Ahunt (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  To other editors, if they ever come here: 

message: I believe this phrase is not very well formulated. Indeed September 2010 was about a decade ago. And about twenty releases ago. This can hardly be called "recently". I suggest to change it to "In 2010 the Xubuntu developers claimed..." -- are there any objections?
77.241.133.37 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense,  - Ahunt (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As recently as September 2010 the Xubuntu developers claimed..." 

message: Indeed, the reference contains only a link to the claimed information. The link, however, is broken - it does not link to any article. The reference [23] therefore has to be removed. Are there any objections?
62.107.9.29 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to remove this ref. The ref says "Xubuntu – the current “lightweight” choice – is not as slender a distribution as people tend to think. Recent benchmarks show it to be just as “demanding” as regular Ubuntu – sometimes even more so!" As per WP:LINKROT we don't remove our own Wikipedia refs because they are broken, we certainly don't remove refs because their internal links are broken. Regardless that link is found at https://web.archive.org/web/20100618102018/http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7520/1.html. We could quote that, as it is quite detailed. - Ahunt (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  But this is our reference [21] which we have already referred to.  Thus reference [23] provides no new information but simply retells the story of reference [21]. Therefore it has to be removed. There is no need to have two identical references. 77.241.140.26 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It provides new information and contributes to the preponderance of reviewers who have noted this, which is why the paragraph is plural.- Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Therefore if there are other reviewers that have noted the article of Laura, I can quote them as well, right? As an yet another indication that Xubuntu "is lightweight and works great".77.241.140.26 (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 23 does not contain the claimed information  

message: Indeed the authors of the article merely claim that some unidentified lubuntu developers believe that "[xubuntu] fails to run on older hardware".
However there is no reference in the article, no link, nothing whatsoever to prove their claim.
Therefore this reference does not satisfy wikipedia's criteria of verifyability.
Therefore this reference must be removed.
Are there any objections?
77.241.138.237 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there are objections. It is a WP:RS, and meets WP:V; they do not have to "prove their claims" and there is no reason to remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, on Maketecheasier there is an article which says that somebody else believes Xubuntu is good for old hardware. Since they do not have to prove their claims I shall put that reference to the text for a balanced view. 77.241.140.26 (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure that is fine, I have just edited it to conform to the ref cited. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am impressed.77.241.140.26 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: May I complete the quote "...she also finds it easy to customise."?77.241.140.26 (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . I did as a paraphrase to avoid "quotes within quotes". - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference [22] does not contain the claimed information 

message: Performance of the beta-version of a software cannot be used as an indicator of the performance of the final version. Indeed the beta-version can still contain debugging code which takes up memory and reduces performance. It can also contain bugs, memory leaks, which inflate its memory usage.
Therefore I suggest one of the two possibilities:
i) remove the paragraph about performance of the beta-version from the "performance" section since it is irrelevant for the performance of the final version.
ii) add at the end of the paragraph, "...however the performance of the beta-version is not a good indicator for the performance of the final version.
What is your opinion?
77.241.138.237 (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It already indicates that the review is of beta software, but just for clarity I have linked it to beta version in case any readers are unclear on that. - Ahunt (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But why at all mention the performance of beta-software? Why do you think it is of any use for the reader? 77.241.140.26 (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the entire ref, as archived, and there is no mention of Xubuntu 9.10 beta or non-beta in it or any other version. That seems to have been derived from the article date of 9 September 2009 and the statement  That is not 100% clear which versions he is referring to. I have rewritten the paragraph to quote what he does actually say instead, which is more general and which I think should solve this issue. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.77.241.140.26 (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to performance of beta-software 

message: Currently, these three sections are in this order:
* Releases
* Applications
* Table of releases 
Some thoughts:
# It seems odd to have the 'Applications' section between both 'releases' sections. A better place would be either before (my preference) of after the releases.
# It might be better to have the (fairly short) table of releases come before the (longer, more detailed) list of all releases. The table would then be some kind of quick overview, with the more elaborate text below.
# The table of releases should probably not be a separate section but rather a part of the general 'Releases' section.
# Finally, I don't see why 'Performance' is part of the 'History' section. In this case, I think a separate section is in order.
Does anybody mind if I change it accordingly?
--MichielN (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to check the article on Lubuntu for how these articles are normally organized. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your swift response. When you say 'how these articles are normally organized', does that mean there is a guideline or some general consensus? Because other than the Lubuntu example I have not yet found any other articles about Linux distributions that use this order.--MichielN (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know there is no formal consensus. Your proposed order above seems more logical, but if we implement your ideas we will need to re-order a few more articles that were generally patterned after the Xubuntu article organization, including Lubuntu and Ubuntu Unity. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for re-ordering of some sections