Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 4

message: The intro is a bit disjointed. For example, the second paragraph has content about the length of support for the latest version, then suddenly changes to information about its philosophy on free-software content and then suddenly states that there is a large support community.
How can this be improved?-Localzuk (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The third paragraph is similar. It covers the derivatives but then goes into how to download them. This seems a bit wrong too.-Localzuk (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've started fixing this. There really is a substantial amount of work needed on this article to make it flow properly. Chris Cunningham 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to improve 

message: As Canonical are a UK registered company and a few people editing appear to be British I've gone through and corrected the whole article to use UK English. Please bear this in mind when making future edits. Chris Cunningham 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do I even bother. Chris Cunningham 15:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for using UK english, i appreciate it (even though i'm Australian). Much of the article originally used British spellings (eg colour) so i thought it was appropriate to maintain the status quo. That said, maybe its because Australian is a weird mix of US and UK english, however for 'focusses' for example, i've never seen that spelling before. I've always used 'focuses'. Maybe i am wrong, however language has a certain dynamic feel and rather than try to religiously change everything to one or the other, just change the fundamental differences like 'colour' for example.Suicup 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Focusses is horrible and I try to avoid the word wherever possible. I wasn't in the mood for rewording the intro again though. Original the article was kind of half-assed, odd instances of both common dialects. I'd have settled for the US form if it had been consistent but it really wasn't, and now it is :) Chris Cunningham 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hooray! I really appreciate your work here. EdC 01:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ummm... foci? Septegram 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello there. A minor point, but Canonical is registered in the Isle of man rather than the UK. Not that it matters - we use the British English too. I'm not convinced, by the way, that British English insists upon use of the plural in the circumstances you describe. See  American and British English differences and , for example. Crebbin 12:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns doesn't go as far as mandating it, but it certainly points it out. Personally I'd make very few exceptions to the rule, and I always treat proper nouns as plural. Chris Cunningham 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: British English is a common term for the dialect of English spoken in the British Isles. Of course, English has no official dialect, so it is ambiguous to refer to any single dialect as "English". Twinxor t 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK English 

message: The Edgy Eft article is really not needed, it should be a sentence in the Ubuntu article - it's even a future release rather than an actual one, making it even more rediculous to have an article about it specifically.  That's why I propose the merge, it seems rediculous to have the stub instead of one line here.  65.94.100.225 16:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, Edgy Eft is not a part of Ubuntu Linux Distribution, but a version of it, and i think it deserves a space of it's own. Life is a four letter word 18:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but that is not true. We cover the other versions of Ubuntu here and as such should cover this version here too.-Localzuk (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: The isolate sentence after first paragraph includes a wrong date, doesn't it? IIRC, Dapper was released June 1, 2006. Jancikotuc 17:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, i found evidence here, i'm changing it... Jancikotuc 17:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  6.06.1. Getting the release date wrong by four months would have been quite an error :) Chris Cunningham 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text:   can you please give your sources? coz i bothered to look at Ubuntu's website and there's a big sign reading "Ubuntu 6.06 LTS With Long Term Support released June 1st 2006". I see you give a different version number, but somehow i'm not able to find any news about it. Can you give me a link to the release announcement of 6.06.1 please? TIA. Besides, it's less than 3 months' difference ;) Jancikotuc 08:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2006-August/000088.html kthxbai. Chris Cunningham 09:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thanx, convinced. Jancikotuc 17:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey, the date of Dapper release is wrong! 

message: We should include links to the article on kubuntu and xubuntu.--//Mac Lover TalkC 22:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try the Variants section. Chris Cunningham 22:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister OSs 

message: The Response section refers a Reader Award without describing it. I'm afraid this needs to be precised given the vagueness of the term.--Chealer 05:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Reader Award? 

message: I've translated whole English article to Bosnian and you can find it on :bs:Ubuntu (Linux distribucija). I've translated it few weeks ago and I'm continuing to update it ;)
I'm wondering should we make a section about future releases  (Edgy Knot - there is) that would include something like this. --Emx 15:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I'm not sure a link the the Edgy wiki is appropriate though; it's only going to be there for another two months or so anyway and linking to wikis as references is always a bit awkward (self excused of course). Chris Cunningham 20:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hm.. 

message: It seems better to move this article to Ubuntu, and the current Ubuntu to Ubuntu (disambiguation). What do youthink? Yao Ziyuan 20:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only reason I didn't do it is because moving existing pages around is a hassle. I fully approve of this change. Chris Cunningham 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Seconded.--Chealer 07:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Concure. Neutralaccounting 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Why do you think it would be better? — Matt Crypto 05:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't seem appropriate to me. The original meaning is notable, and the Linux flavor doesn't seem that well-known beyond nerd circles. Twinxor t 14:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There are sensible redirects in place which will bring people to this article if they look for "Ubuntu Linux", which is probably how most people would go about searching for this article anyway, so I don't see a strong argument for the move. Ubernostrum 20:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Support move. Ubuntu Linux is a notable Linux distribution. The ideology doesn't even register in the dictionary (look up yourself). --Voidvector 14:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went and looked up myself, and lo and behold, Ubuntu the ideology is in "the" dictionary (the Collins English Dictionary, for a start). I don't know of any dictionaries that contain a definition for Ubuntu Linux, however. Ubuntu Linux might be notable amongst free-software geeks, but things are very different in the wider world. — Matt Crypto 15:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move? 

message: I've got a mediation case open with the recent editor for undiscussed and unwarranted reverts on Advanced Packaging Tool. I believe this is more of the same, as the summary used recently makes no indication that it rolls back a number of disputed changes made since his last edit. As these have not been discussed (and contravene policy in one case) I'm reverting to Lisamh's version with the following notes:
* "relevant to the Christian faith" is less chatty than "geared trowards Christians";
* Windows Media is only supported in non-free in Debian, and Ubuntu's Multiverse policies aren't a 1:1 with non-free's;
* "GNOME" is still occasionally taken to expand to mean "GNU Network Object Model Environment", so duplicating "environment" would be a case of RAS Syndrome;
* "Notes and references" reads better than "References and notes".
Please discuss these changes further if you'd like them re-added. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 08:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are loads of them - there is even more than one Christian Ubuntu - Ichthux seems to have actual Ubuntu developers involved. Secretlondon 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That said, there seems to have been considerably more discussion of UCE than actual adoption of it. Two forum threads and a dozen tech news posts generated from same do not necessarily mean that it holds particular value to the article. While I didn't agree with removing it (and indeed rewrote its inclusion to make it fit better when it was originally added), I would certainly suggest that it is more productive to work on UCE's own article for the time being than lobbying the inclusion of the current stab on this talk page. Chris Cunningham 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think if we include Ubuntu Christian Edition we have to include Ichthux which is based on Kubuntu, has Ubuntu members involved in it and has had mentions in Ubuntu community marketing materials. As both articles are a couple of sentences working on them would be more productive. There are also 101 distros which are derived from Ubuntu - we don't need to give promotional space to all of them. Secretlondon 22:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts 

message: In response to a recent edit summary, "first expand that article, and then list it here", I'd like to point out that completeness (or even existence!) of the linked article is not a criterion for linking. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Twinxor t 20:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, there seems to have been considerably more discussion of UCE than actual adoption of it. Two forum threads and a dozen tech news posts generated from same do not necessarily mean that it holds particular value to the article. While I didn't agree with removing it (and indeed rewrote its inclusion to make it fit better when it was originally added), I would certainly suggest that it is more productive to work on UCE's own article for the time being than lobbying the inclusion of the current stab on this talk page. Chris Cunningham 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think if we include Ubuntu Christian Edition we have to include Ichthux which is based on Kubuntu, has Ubuntu members involved in it and has had mentions in Ubuntu community marketing materials. As both articles are a couple of sentences working on them would be more productive. There are also 101 distros which are derived from Ubuntu - we don't need to give promotional space to all of them. Secretlondon 22:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: I think a large enough number of people use ubuntu to refer to the ubuntu family of distros (esp kubuntu but also Xubntu and Edubuntu) as well as the specific gnome version that the intro should have something along the lines of "ubuntu can also be used to refer to the ubuntu family of distributions including kubuntu, edubuntu and Xubuntu" or something similar. What do others think? The bellman 06:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this would make the article any clearer. Chris Cunningham 13:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kubuntu and Xubuntu