Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 2

message: I have re-added the removed stansa about gnubuntu. To state that this site can't contain information about the future releases of anything is ridiculous. There are future release movies discussed on the site, also cd's. It is a fact that there was discussion about Gnubuntu, removing it is counter-productive IMO. -Localzuk (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just looks unprofessional, with that quote. I'll paraphrase it. Euphrosyne 22:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  gnubuntu stansa 

message: Someone a while back removed the category tags for :Category:Linux distributions and :Category:Debian-based distributions, claiming that they were "redundant supercats".  This would be true except for one thing:  Ubuntu Linux is the defining article for the category :Category:Ubuntu.  As such, it should have all the same category tags that :Category:Ubuntu has.  I'm restoring them now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: * Ubuntu had a particular package called ubuntu-calendar which downloaded a new desktop wallpaper every month, but these wallpapers featured nude people and were criticized as overly risqué. This led to Ubuntu receiving nicknames such as "Linuxxx"  and "The Porn Distro".  It was not installed by default, and has been discontinued as of April 2005.
This does not belong into features, but rather in trivia, and can promote negativity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Slicky (talk • contribs) 
:I have restored it into its prior form. Ubuntu promotes itself as a 'Human Distribution' and as such created a calendar series with humans in. This is a distinct feature as no other OS has done this. Also, please note that promoting something negatively is not POV. The article hopes to provide a NPOV view of Ubuntu Linux and putting this information in, with references, does not change that. -Localzuk (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that there is a calendar feature with humans is a feature. The fact that there were nude people in it that were pulled from default releases before the system even shipped and that generated some goofy nicknames is pure trivia. I think this should be split up or moved entirely. —mako 21:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRIVIA 

message: "If this deal goes through, it would allow Ubuntu users a way of buying Linspire's LSongs and LPhoto programs."
Lsongs and Lphoto are licenced under the GPL and binaries for them are included in the Debian pool.  Why would anyone need CNR to buy these GPLed pieces of software?  Chiok 21:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite that, I imagine Linspire would be happy to sell them. Twinxor t 02:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LSongs and LPhoto

message: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Ubuntu-libre
--Easyas12c 09:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point of this link?--Chealer 21:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gnubuntu -> Ubuntu-libre 

message: The version is now 6.06 for Dapper as it is being released in June 2006. Please read the section on the naming scheme to clarify this. -Localzuk (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 6.06 

message: I have just removed the extra screenshot of Synaptic package manager. I have done this due to it being redundant - as it does not show anything new about the Ubuntu desktop. The article is not about the Synaptic package manager and as such images are not needed. -Localzuk (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot removal 

message: We need to choose a common referencing style for this page. If no-one minds, I will edit the article and change all the references to the same type so as to keep the list tidy. -Localzuk (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it is WP:FN I'm happy. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing style 

message: CNR would quite clearly not replace current Ubuntu installation system, so the question is really, if another piece of software should be made available to Ubuntu. There are already other alternative installation systems on Ubuntu (most of them are of click'n'run type). On the other hand this could work as a test, if Ubuntu can make it in the center of a healthy free software business. However the CNR section is far too long for just that. Such explanation should rather be a list of free software businesses which have been able to merge their business model with Ubuntu.
Anyway the resolution will probably affect more Linspire users who are "hooked" into using CNR. Either for obtaining some necessary commercial software piece or just because they are familiar with the UI. This might lead in long terms to Linspire dropping their own operating system or making it an Ubuntu derivative. Then Linspire would not have to work on their operating system, while they would still remain in the market with their easy-to-use (I've been told) software store.
For these reasons I suggest that CNR stuff will either be merged to Linspire#CNR or a separate CNR (software store)-article will be created. --Easyas12c 10:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNR for Ubuntu (merge to CNR or Linspire) 

message: I don't recall estimated release date as part of the email Mark Shuttleworth sent.  Just out of curiousity, where's October from?  --ZachPruckowski 18:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't on that email (though I suppose there could be another source). But what I find odd about the october suggestion is that it is only 4 months after the release of Dapper, while the new releases normally come out every six months. Now Dapper isn't after six months, but after eight. I find it unlikely that they are going to release a new version in just half the time it took them to make the one before unless they want to seriously sacrifice quality. Raoul Harris 13:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is more likely a roll-over from the prior release style (.04 and .10). The official release schedule on the Ubuntu site does not have any mention of it as yet. I would suggest removing it and leaving it blank as any such dates are currently speculation. -Localzuk (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See http://wiki.ubuntu.com/EdgyEft Jonas Jørgensen 18:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough then. But I think that's a mistake on their part; I don't think its long enough. Why not just make Edgy Eft 6.12 instead of 6.10 to make sure they get time to brush up on the quality? But then I'm actually writing this from Ubuntu - they seem to have done things right in the past to me and hopefully will be doing the right thing this time. Raoul Harris 18:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because they want to follow the Gnome 6 month release schedule again, so Ubuntu will always ship with the latest Gnome around one month after its release. Jonas Jørgensen 18:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that makes sense too. I just think quality is more important than exactly following the gnome release cycle. Dapper's 2 months later (about 3 months after the release of gnome), Why can't all the future versions be this much later? Or do Eft and Eft+1 both taking five months which would bring it back into line? I'll stop questioning though. If they think that 4 months is enough to make a high enough quality release then I'm sure it is. Raoul Harris 19:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please keep questioning, I love answering Ubuntu questions :-)  I believe part of the reason they aren't going to do Edgy and Edgy+1 as two five-month cycles is that the Gnome-synchronized six month release cycle with a release every April and October was one of the original big selling points that helped make Ubuntu popular, and they want to prove that they are able to stick to that promise. Also, Edgy is planned to be a, well, edgy release, in that it's the beginning of a new two-year-ish cycle which is eventually going to end up in another Dapper-style long term supported release. So that means that this is the time to introduce a lot of new cool tech and, well, break things. Since they have a reasonably recent and guaranteed stable OS in Dapper, they are going to be a little looser in terms of what risks they are willing to take with Edgy, since they can just tell someone looking for an ultra totally stable OS to consider installing Dapper even after Edgy has shipped. Therefore the 4½ month cycle seems more acceptable than it would have been for previous releases. (As far as I know! -- all of this is just stuff I've read on mailing lists and wiki pages.) Jonas Jørgensen 22:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as a member of the Ubuntu release team, Jonas' comment above is a pretty accurate summary of the situation. Also, extra time doesn't necessarily mean better quality - actually we've sometimes found that tighter deadlines tend to focus people's minds on what's important and make it less likely that people will go off and do things that look interesting but are in fact not so well-tested. Obviously you can't push this too far, but we feel that 4.5 months is adequate enough. And finally, as well as Jonas' point about meeting external expectations, bringing the release cycle sharply back onto track is important for managing internal expectations - it demonstrates that, in a time-based release system, the flip side of the relative luxury of an extended release cycle is having to tighten our metaphorical belts a little the next time round. --Colin Watson 21:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edgy Eft

message: As someone who doesn't dabble in Linux every day, the following questions/statements came to mind. Note that most of them involve taking the article a step down in technicality... because it should be understandable to the average encyclopedia reader, which is, in this case, me. :-) 
# What is Linux and its goal?
# Why the comparison to Debian in the introductory paragraph? It seems as though this deserves its own section, and doesn't help me properly understand the definition of Ubuntu.
# What is GNOME?
# I'm guessing that the goal of Ubuntu is... to make Ubuntu accessible to all? I couldn't really tell what purpose Ubuntu served.
Feel free to reply or contest. —Rob (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I'll concede that the article might offer a bigger picture of Ubuntu, rather than focusing so much on certain specifics. But I'm not sure the article ought to explain all kinds of things, just because an average reader is probably unfamiliar with them. For example, your first and third questions are best answered at the Linux distribution and GNOME articles, and I think this article should simply link them with a little context, as it does. (Linux distribution is not IMO a very good article, but it gets the point across, and to explain the concept here seems outside the article's scope.) Twinxor t 04:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Twinxor. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Nomination explanation 

message: Should there really be reviews in this article? When was the las time you read an encyclopedia with reviews in it?
:In response to this comment, and in line with my own assessment, I have removed the following section entirely. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the article need not focus on reviews too much, having an idea of the critical reaction is useful, because it helps to provide context. Twinxor t 18:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Reviews come in all kinds. No one should object to objective review of facts, but personal opinions unsupported by facts and attempts to aggrandize the reviewer must be avoided. Wikipedia should not be used to generate hits for professional writers some of whom deliberately produce volumes of fluff to draw hits/flames/discussions rather than adding to or summarizing human knowledge.64.42.204.112 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what exactly are you referring to, if any? Or merely espousing the very phenomenon you purport to expose? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: http://lunapark6.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/gnome.jpg from http://lunapark6.com/?p=1235
Some people on irc (freenode #ubuntu) claim that the above has the correct desktop background. I suspect a different one is used on hdd install vs. live cd? Can anyone clarify? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is that the Lagoon one on the article page is the default, but other are also included, such as the one in the linked page. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Default desktop background 

message: To expand on my edit summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_%28Linux_distribution%29&diff=57050959&oldid=57050713
#Presumably technical support from Canonical comes at a cost - is this their business model?
#Other companies may decide to give longer support.
Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct - Canonical offers paid support. But it's also worth noting that for most users, "support" mostly refers to the updated repositories, which will be maintained for 5 years for Dapper. Twinxor t 20:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LTS support from Canonical 

message: I moved the following about Ubuntu's distrowatch ranking since it's possibly misleading:
[Ubuntu] has been marked as the most popular Linux distribution at Distrowatch for more than one year , and [...]
As someone who's not a native English speaker, I believe this can be interpreted as meaning that Ubuntu is considered the most popular by distrowatch. If someone believes that distrowatch's ranking, despite being known to be biased with live CDs and newbie-friendly distros, is worth being mentioned, I'd like someone to confirm that the sentence shouldn't be interpreted as meaning that distrowatch considers Ubuntu as the most popular Linux distro.--Chealer 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  distrowatch ranking 

message: It is not very good as it is a JPG.  Can somebody make a PNG version of the same idea?  The idea is good though.  I never liked my contribution much. (the Breezy Image) bruce89 14:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My Ubuntu machine is out of reach. Anybody else to do this? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image