Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 1

message: This looks like they stole most of it from the main website for Ubuntu. I don't believe that's a real problem, but someone may want to delve in and clean it up to prevent possible issues later.
: It seems that the "Components" section was directly imported from  in the first version: . I can't find any such correspondance in the other parts of the article. — Matt 16:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. I don't really understand the legal issues, but we should salvage the lead section. There also remains the possibility that the original contributor of the website material — a User:Jaduncan — was the legitimate copyright holder. I think we should drop him a note, either way. — Matt 18:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed my mind; I've rewritten the entire article instead, and ended up expanding it in the process. Oops.  (Oh, and as for them being the owner, it's possible but doubtful: the copyright is claimed by Canonical Ltd, not by any individual. Moot point, now, we have a from-scratch version.) - IMSoP 18:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio? 

message: Somebody has decided that we don't need a header above the "Distinguishing features" list. I haven't time to check the manual of style or anything, but these are my thoughts on why it's nicer to have a header there:
* It separates the intro, which should mention all key facts, from the first of three detailed bits of information (features, structure, releases). This is the most important argument: that bulletted list does not belong in the intro, it belongs as part of the substance of the article. Headings distinguish the one from the other. 
** If there were no headings at all, I'd agree that there's no need, but if the article in general is big enough to need headings, we need one there.
* With a bulletted list underneath, that intro sentence becomes a paragraph with only five words, and just looks lost.
* If the article gets a couple more headers, a table of contents will appear. Without a header after the intro, it will appear right underneath that bulletted list, so you'll have to scroll down the page before you get to it.
Thoughts? - IMSoP 16:34, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think it's probably better with a header there. — Matt 17:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading or sentence 

message: The screenshot shown is a heavily customised desktop (different Gnome and Firefox themes, extra desktop icons, different background, etc).  It would probably be as easy to customise another distribution to look like this as it is to customise Ubuntu, so it doesn't really tell the reader much about Ubuntu in particular.  I think it would be better to show a screenshot that reflects on what a new user is likely to see, rather than what a user might customise the desktop to look like.
: That sounds like a reasonable suggestion, or at least include a more "normal" screenshot in addition. Would it be possible for you to procure one yourself? — Matt Crypto 11:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have fixed it. Bruce89 21:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Screenshot 

message: Seems to me the article plays it a little coy about Debian's relationship with Ubuntu- Ubuntu is completely derived from Debian, it doesn't merely share developers and a package manager like it seems to me the article leads one to conclude (not to knock it- I use and like both Ubuntu and Debian.)  Maybe the heavy promotion of Ubuntu might be mentioned- heck, they'll mail you multiple copies of Ubuntu if you ask nicely.  Not something I've heard other distros do.
-- Maru Dubshinki 10:08 PM Thursday, 03 March 2005
:I'm still not clear on the distinction here. Seems to me Ubuntu is to Debian as a yearbook is to highschool. Sure it's shiny, but you wait forever to get one and somehow all the pictures are of the popular kids. I'd rather have newspaper delivered daily then a truck arrive every six months with half a forest. Their website is unhelpful. Their unique features are rather droll, in fact. Linux that you can download or get on a CD? That's fresh. It's free? Blowing me away here. Fast, easy install? Linux hasn't been hard to install in a loooong time. Immediately useful? I hope that doesn't mean bloat. Maybe I'm just missing the point ... but does anyone else get the feeling it's going to be dead within one or two of their "regular updates" (6 months is a long time ...). Or maybe it will take over the world -- stranger things have happened. I would like to see a criticism sector in this article. Just for completeness. (Even Paul Graham has a criticism section). --69.158.48.123 05:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, pull up a bunch of criticisms, cite and weed'em, and stick them in. That's what Wikipedia is all about.  But as for your points:  who else sends you free cds, if you are unfortunate enough to not have a burner?  Aside from Linspire and one or two other distros, who is as desktop functional as Ubuntu?  Or multi-lingual (one of their main points)?  etc. --Maru 20:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you were missing the point. I know this is an old discussion but the point is that they are trying to make linux more accessible by reducing the amount of guff you have to go through to find what you want. They won't just vanish as they have a good financial grounding (Ubuntu foundation started with initial $10 million - enough to last a long time in the linux world). -localzuk 20:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hum. FREE CDs? I missed that part. Hum. And multi-lingual is good. Hum. 69.158.75.42 04:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, months later,still growing , still going strong, huge community, guess you guys are a little red in the face? I gotta say, its made me stick with linux for longer than I ever have before.  Yoink23 19:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debian 

message: The article could use graphs similar to :Image:Debian-package-cycle.png --Easyas12c 11:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphs 

message: I have never heard of Ubuntu before until today, when I encountered reference to it on Slashdot. A quick visit to this article to bone up on the topic makes me think I haven't come to the right place: I pretty quickly began to question the tone of the article. This really strikes me as borderline advertisement written by a fan, and not an even handed description of this linux flavor. The frequent "quick and easy" comments smack of credulity and bias, and the only negative comment in the whole article is to note an unintiontional problem that has since been fixed; ie, not a negative at all.  Dxco 18:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you cite specific parts of the article you feel are not neutral? Other than possibly the bullet points regarding Ubuntu's goals of usability and accessibility (and regardless of whether a particular user feels those goals are met, it is a verifiable fact that those are stated goals of the Ubuntu project), I don't see these "frequent 'quick and easy' comments" you're complaining about. Ubernostrum 11:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that there has been lots of editing since the post of that message. So the situation is somewhast better today. (See ) --Easyas12c 14:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The feeling I quickly got while reading this article, and that stayed with me and grew while reading it, is along the lines of "I don't trust this article. It sounds like a passionate fan wrote it, and not a neutral party evenly describing what Ubuntu is." The general tone of the article struck me as somewhat breathless and upbeat, in a manner found on sales brochures. As well, I, as random average Joe reader who does not know much at all about Linux distributions, feel that I have walked away from the article without really understanding what Ubuntu is. The article leaves me feeling that my attention has been focused on the product, plans for it, and the direction it hopes to go, without leaving me with a sense of context, why it was created, and how it relates to things more generally, and what it actually *is* (in the "What was the Magna Carta?" sense). The detail of the article is of course not a bad thing - I certainly don't take point with that. But in the same way that a radio isn't usefully described by detailing each circuit, dial, and crystal that goes into it; so too does a detailed list of features and plans for a linux distribution in and of itself not describe what it is.Dxco 03:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: As I mention above, I don't really know much at all about Linux, and certainly don't use it. My comments above are related to the overall tone of the article from the standpoint of Joe-average reader. I applaud it's thoroughness and detail, but worry at how I recieved it, so to speak, when reading it. Dxco 03:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral?

message: Should links to OSDir.com and DistroWatch.com be considered official resources? I would have thought only the actual Ubuntu sites would be official and everything else unofficial. SilverFox 00:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and they're not listed as official resources anymore neither.--Chealer 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: There are a couple of sentences which are not backed up and seem to be anecdotal in nature. They are: 
This applies not only to Ubuntu but to alternative/free operating systems in general, which big proprietary businesses are not always interested in, because of the potentially marginal profit gain. The installation procedure of such software is approximately equally hard to the one in Microsoft Windows, but may still render helpless an average user who is unfamiliar with his new Ubuntu system.
Do we have any links/refs for either of the statements (that big business doesn't like linux due to marginal profits and that windows installation of software is equally as hard)? I know that these are both reflective of the truth but would like to see some sort of article referenced.-localzuk 16:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added a selection of references to the article for a lot of the points. However, I still cannot find one to show that installing Windows software is as difficult as Linux (I can find a comment on a blog stating it but nothing definitive/verfiable). -localzuk 11:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be gone now. Is this discussion closed?--Chealer 22:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The table of release versions lists all the versions (warty, hoary, breezy etc...) but also lists ubuntu-server? Why does it do this? It does not list all the kubuntu or edubuntu releases and will likely not list xubuntu releases? Should we restrict the table to main 'ubuntu' releases and possible also include a seperate list of kubuntu/edubuntu/xubuntu/server-ubuntu releases (unless these should restricted to their own pages).-localzuk 16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think you're right. The Ubuntu server doesn't belong there. A separate list is needed. Gflores Talk 18:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have hidden the row in a html comment at the moment. If a anyone wants it re-instating do so and say why here? If not then I will delete it tomorrow.-localzuk 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ubuntu Server in release table