Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 14

Live CDs

I've added a citation to the fact that some people call the custom live cds "custom spins," but I was not able to find anything stating Canonical's opinion on the subject. The section might be something that should just be removed from the artical, even more so since the section is just two sentences long at the moment. Zen Clark (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Releases

There should be a list of releases by code name, release date and version number. I cannot find them and am lousy at Wiki-work anyway, but to the best of my memory: Breezy Badger, Hoary Hedgehog, Intrepid Ibex, no doubt 2 or three more.Mark Preston (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

History of Ubuntu releases. However, maybe the table should be copied here for quick reference... --Falcorian (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There used a table of the codenames of different versions of ubuntu, like hardy heron, dapper drake, and so on, together with release dates. Was it deleted for some particular reason? I find it quite useful information. Does something speak against restoring it? Thanks for the info. Ben T/C 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

History of Ubuntu releases --Falcorian (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The list should be incorporated in the main article (even if there is some wiki rule against that). It's info a lot of people want about ubuntu, especially since the catching release names are so characteristic of ubuntu. I added the list by copy-pasting. I couldn't stand the dutch wikipedia containing such a list and the english not. I hope i kept to all the conventions by just copy-pasting it. Anybody feel free to further modify it 145.88.209.33 (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC) (oops, got logged out whils eating the birthday cake of a colleague Pizzaman79 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

@*#@ (cursing) I now know what kept others from just copy-pasting; the references. I now also copy-pasted all references in the table from the List_of_Ubuntu_releases page. However i propose replacing them all with a single link to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases. However not being an ubuntu user, i feel i've contributed more than my share to this page so i'll leave further improving of this article to others. Pizzaman79 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Most popular distribution

Hi. An anon recently disputed the claim that Ubuntu is the most popular distribution. I believe this claim is well backed by the sources provided (The Desktop Linux Survey, various sets of Distrowatch data, and Google Trends). Some of these sources are not authoritative enough by themselves, but all of them in conjunction are pretty strong evidence that Ubuntu is the most popular linux distribution. Specially considering that in each of these sources Ubuntu wins by a sizable margin (In the 2007 Desktop Linux Survey, it gets 30%, with the second being 20%; in all Distrowatch results it wins with a sizable margin (except in 2007, when PCLinuxOS comes close), and Distrowatch can be considered unfair to Ubuntu because it only counts as Ubuntu those who use GNOME (those using KDE count as Kubuntu, etc.), while all Mandriva users are counted as Mandriva (as far as I know). The Google trends data shows a drastic advantage to Ubuntu. The 2006 Desktop Linux Survey also shows a sizable advantage to Ubuntu. It is true that some of these sources are focused on linux on the Desktop, so someone could claim we are being unfair to Red Hat. But, AFAIK, the word "popular" is about the public at large, so this is well fit. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can produce more reliable surveys or statistics, we'll just have to use those. Also, although this is Google data gain, don't forget about Google Insights: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=Ubuntu%2CMandriva%2CFedora%2CRed%20Hat%2COpenSUSE&geo=&date=&clp=&cmpt=q —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altonbr (talk • contribs) 04:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Another interesting set of data from Google Insights: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=Ubuntu%2CWindows%20XP%2CWindows%20Vista%2COS%20X&geo=&date=&clp=&cmpt=q. But can you also see how I can skew my own statistics? Here is another example, not in favour of Ubuntu vs Windows: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=Ubuntu%2CWindows&geo=&date=&clp=&cmpt=q Altonbr (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Google Trends comparison: This is false/unreliable data since Google Trends searches also include the zulu word "ubuntu" therefore inflating Ubuntu linux's real data. (I don't see a way of excluding the zulu word from the data, if anyone has the knowledge, then modify it.) Contrarily to what was written, Debian has actually gained over the past 12 months while Ubuntu has lost according to Distrowatch. Nevertheless, this is an encyclopedia, not a marketing campaign, please refrain from belittling other distros; try to inform rather than downplay/demean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VShaka (talk • contribs) 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
And there are also popular hats as well as inspiring nammes such as "vista", which are both more prominent than ubuntu (philosophy). In any case, we're not belittling, simply stating what has been reported by reliable sources. ffm 19:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I want to make this clear (about conflicting names with philosophy)

Ubuntu is an IMPORTANT philosophy of idealism from Africa. The OS, while receiving more queries for the philosophy, is NOWHERE close in importance and the former. Ubuntu should be the page of the philosophy, and having a link on that page as:

This article is about an African philosophy; for the operating system, see Ubuntu (operating system). For other uses, see Ubuntu (disambiguation).

Now, can you tell me why Spore is a biological body, Link is not a Video Game character, Fedora is a felt hat, and Ubuntu is an Operative System? Does this make sense? --Fixman (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense, but you aren't dealing with reasonable people either. I'll vote your way now! Fredio54 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support, *Support redirect to disambiguation, or *Oppose followed by an explanation, then sign your opinion with -~~~~


  • Support moving over, it makes sense to me. It was after all the OS that took the name of the philosophy. Chillum 21:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Hamlet, the Shakespeare play, took after and was based upon the Scandanavian legend of the same name; but that doesn't stop the Hamlet article being about the former, (with the latter at Hamlet (legend)); since it's more widely known and more notable. That's not an isolated example, either: look everywhere on WP, and the page without clarifying brackets is almost always either the most common usage or a disambiguation; not the one which came first chronologically. -- simxp (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

SF007 (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Irrelevant. we are talking about its location on a encyclopedia, NOT its historical/moral/philosophical value. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - The Ubuntu Linux distribution used to be titled Ubuntu (Linux distribution) and that was succinct and concise, just the way an encyclopedia should. The OS was named after the philosophy, not the other way around. - Team4Technologies (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Irrelevant. The previous name of the article is of no importance in deciding its proper name, and chronological historical order is also irrelevant as stated by simxp. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Nobody fought a war with blood and mortar in favor of the operating system. Thousands of people died in support of the principles of the philosophy. jonathon (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment - cfr. my reply to SF007 above. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Etymology is irrelevant. "Importance" is irrelevant. Usage is the only important aspect. The term is more commonly-used to refer to the OS, so the OS belongs at the root article. Our naming policies are very clear about this, which is why the page got to its current title in the first place. The former discussion is at Talk:Ubuntu (disambiguation)#Revisiting primary topic, and is required reading. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe that if you were in Africa or African, you may disagree with the usage. - Team4Technologies (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
last time i checked this was the English wikipedia... You are aware that this is just one language among thousends and that we have encyclopedias with different languages that cater to different cultural audiences, right? is not like the english encyclopedia is the world's encyclopedia, it's just th largest of its localized versions. Compare es:Mono with Mono. Maybe in the Bantu Language encyclopedia, the philosophy would have the naked title, but alas, this is not Bantu, and we have to cater to the cultural frame of reference of our target audience. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
"Etymology is irrelevant. "Importance" is irrelevant. Usage is the only important aspect." How can you say that? I don't think that makes much sense... and regarding the archived version, the consensus was to change the article about the distro to Ubuntu (operating system)
  • Oppose Per Chris and WP:NAME. It is the most common current usage of Ubuntu, and should therefore be here. --Falcorian (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chris. Team4Technologies is right that usage patterns vary across the world, but as it stands globally Ubuntu the operating system is a much more associated with Ubuntu than the Ubuntu philosophy. Scott Ritchie (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you please provide citation for your claim of global acknowledgment of "Ubuntu" as an Operating System and not a philosophy? - Team4Technologies (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have it, and would be open to being convinced the other way if you can provide citation otherwise. As it stands, Ubuntu the philosophy is a word used in southern Africa and Ubuntu the operating system is used by the majority of people on the internet which, admittedly, isn't too representative of the world. Scott Ritchie (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - While the OS might more commonly be the referent (especially in the west) I think it makes much more sense to have the philosophy as the root page, and then the OS as Ubuntu_(Operating_System) or something similar. My reasoning is quite simple - the operating system doesn't just use the syntactical construction "Ubuntu" but specifically uses the term in reference to its philosophical meaning. To quote from wiki, "The "Ubuntu" distribution of the Linux computer operating system is inspired by the concept, arguing that it "brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world."". Because of this, it isn't simply two referents sharing the same syntactical form - it is a case where a later referent intentionally adopts the name of the former in order to imply meaning. As a trivial (and imaginary) example, say a band called "The Brothers Karamazov" becomes incredibly popular, even moreso than the book, though the band explicitly acknowledges that they took the name from Dostoevsky in order to suggest many of the same themes in their work. The wiki article - in my mind - should still point first and foremost to the book, as the band's name doesn't make sense without the book first existing. In the same sense, the OS being called Ubuntu depends upon that syntactical construction previously referring to an African philosophy. I do understand that wiki's policy is normally most common current usage, but in a case of proper names as referents such as this, entomology isn't simply a matter of historical curiosity, but paramount to understanding why the name "Ubuntu" refers to a GNU/Linux OS. V krishna (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Counter exaple: The Rolling Stones. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with Chris and others who opposed. Majority of the users who search for "Ubutnu" want to read about the OS not the philosophy behind it.-Abhishek (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support - Which existed first...
  • Oppose - Its most helpful to people if they find the article they are looking for. Its not a statement about importance or war. Its just what much more people are searching for. Although I don't think it should be called ubuntu. Better ubuntu linux or something like that. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    It isn't called "Ubuntu Linux" by it's provider, anymore than Debian GNU/Linux is called Debian Linux. ffm 23:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose per WP:NAME, and as others have explained above: history is irrelevant, "emotional impact" is irrelevant, frequency of usage is what counts. The vast majority of people who go to "Ubuntu" are looking for the Linux distro, and setting this up to be the default choice is not a value judgment, merely a practical matter. Above all, Wiki is not paper, we can revisit this issue if one or the other meaning of Ubuntu becomes more or less used. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 08:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per above, Ubuntu as an OS is more popular than the philosophy. ffm 23:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. While "Ubuntu the distro" is the most popular meaning to people using the Internet from developed countries, "Ubuntu the philosophy" is very probably the most popular meaning from a broader, global perspective. Accordingly, we shouldn't make "Ubuntu the distro" the primary meaning. While Wikipedia is indeed currently read mostly using the Internet and from developed countries, I think it's a mistake to prioritise that audience. — Matt Crypto 14:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Matt, you may be right that more people in the world care about Ubuntu-the-philosophy than Ubuntu-the-Linux-distro. But those of us who Oppose this measure don't see that as particularly relevant. I see it as a purely practical question: is someone typing "Ubuntu" into the Wikipedia search box likely to get what they want on the first try? Since the overwhelming majority of users right now are looking for the Linux distro, that should be the default destination. As I have pointed out many times before Wiki is not paper... this is a decision that could be reversed in the blink of an eye (cf. recent edit wars to this article) if more people start looking for the other meanings of "Ubuntu". A redirect is not a value judgment about the "importance" of the two topics, and it is not set in stone. I don't know why everyone is reading politics and bias into this issue... :-(
The Wikipedia:Disambiguation page gives some useful guidelines for this question, anyway (emphasis mine):
Does anyone see a reason why that shouldn't apply here? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 14:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Who says the Linux Distribution is "well known"? Maybe those in the Linux community, but that's NOT the public at large. - Team4Technologies (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
      • In August, there were 12515 hits for the philosophy, and 128419 hits for the main "ubuntu" article, which redirects to the Linux distribution. In January, when the main "ubuntu" article was a disambig page, there were 123k page views for "Ubuntu (Linux distribution)" and 9k for "Ubuntu (philosophy)". I think those results speak for themselves. Ubuntu the Linux distribution is well known among people who visit Wikipedia, and those are the people for whom this redirect is useful. As I've said before, it's a convenience feature, not a value judgment about the articles or their subjects. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment - ""Ubuntu the philosophy" is very probably the most popular meaning from a broader, global perspective" <--- that is pure and utter nonsense. 1.- Ubuntu is a southafrican word in Bantu. It is used by peoples from some parts of subsaharan Africa to refer to a philosophical concept for which there are other names in western tradition. it isn't "global" nor "broader" than any non-western terms, believing this is a prime example of ethnocentrism and cultural imperialism, giving undeserved importance to some foreign cultural concept just because it's "third-worldy", or "african" and passing this as "global" and "broader". 2.- THIS IS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ENCYCLOPEDIA!. it is NOT the world's broader and global encyclopedia, it is not a culture-neutral repository of knowledge for mankind, it is ONLY the largest localized instance of a multicultural project. M U L T Icultural, NOT A-cultural. Trying to introduce global relevance and criterias for inclusion is just contributing to the already dangerously spread idea that the english wikipedia is THE encyclopedia. Talk about cultural imperialism. Apart from that, in the factual discussion above about the comparative relevance, i agree with everything said by ǝɹʎℲxoɯ. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Bolding, capitalising and spacing your text makes it harder to read, and adds little but the impression that you're rather emotional about something. Any chance we could debate this calmly and rationally, rather than attempting to overpower each other with an assault of typography? Righty then. My point is simply that when we deliberate as to whether an overloaded term has a primary meaning or not, we should be careful that we aren't swayed by our natural bias towards free culture and technology -- topics that Ubuntu Linux and Wikipedia both pertain to -- or, more generally, by a bias for Western culture. The fact that we are the ENGLISH LANGUAGE ENCYCLOPEDIA, as you so enthusiastically shouted above, seems neither here nor there in that regard. — Matt Crypto 06:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I find it makes it easier to read. Emotions help motivate us, with out them we may do nothing. I see nothing that says the discussion is not rational. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Nothing AGAINST emotion per se <-- *but* annotating T E X T can be "overdone", no?! — Matt Crypto 20:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that the above pretty definitely qualifies as "extended discussion"... -- simxp (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Simxp, it's a valid point. I hesitate to follow it here, however, since the dispute seems to largely be an emotional argument, rather than an actual dispute about which article is more sought-after. Many of the Supporters of this proposal seem to think that we're belittling or marginalizing the philosophy by making the Linux distribution the primary topic, which is not the intention. But no one seems to actually dispute the fact that about 10X more wikipedia visitors are looking for the Linux article. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Page hits does not take into account unique visitors and with the frequent updates to the Linux Distro's page, it's very possible that it's the same circle of people are checking it each day/week and causing the hits to jump, so hits aren't a good indicator of global popularity. Going back to having a disambiguation page would really solve a lot of the arguments and define lines of importance by taking those lines away.
If you think the popular and vernacular usage always gets the nod in Wiki, check out corn. - Team4Technologies (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Then what is such an indicator? ffm 23:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, but the burden of proof isn't on me. - Team4Technologies (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? You're arguing that page-hits are not a valid metric, and are advocating a change. ffm
Yes. - Team4Technologies (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't that mean that the burden is on you? ffm 13:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not the one claiming that the Linux Distro is more popular than the Philosophy. I don't see how one could be name-preferential over the other, hence why I advocate for a return to the disambiguation page. The onus is on those people that claim the Linux Distro deserves primary name recognition to explain why. When "popularity" is brought up, I ask for evidence. Any advertiser will tell you that page hits alone do not constitute popularity. Please read burden of proof link before replying as you may think I'm asking for one thing when I'm asking for something else. - Team4Technologies (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Page hits may not correspond to "popularity" (whatever that actually means), but they do indicate what people are looking for when they type wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu. Which is what the redirect is all about. In my opinion, there is no need to worry about popularity or topical importance or perceived slights or anything like that... it's simply a matter of providing a convenient redirect for most of the visitors to the page. And page hits clearly show they are overwhelmingly looking for the Linux distro. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 17:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps more correctly it should be convenient redirect for most of the visits rather than visitors, since it can be same people generating the visits. I'm not suggesting it is the same people, just can be. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Those page hits can be explained as the result of technocultural imperialism that is biased against anything other than Western European culture, that Wikipeida suffers from.jonathon (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Even if that's the case, we still currently have more tecnhocultural imperialist ubuntu linux visitors than we do ubuntu philosophy visitors. Scott Ritchie (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
EXACTLY! And we may as well redirect our "Ubuntu" page to cater to our hordes of technocultural imperialist visitors, since the redirect implies absolutely no bias or value judgment about the other articles under the Ubuntu name. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 20:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there a Godwin's Corollary for usage of 'technocultural imperialism'? Because there really should be. --Falcorian (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
"Hitler". There, I said it. Godwin +1. - Team4Technologies (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh :-) Whatever the corollary is, I hope it's highly self-referential. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 00:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • *Support redirect to disambiguation I use Ubuntu Linux, but I think is not the most important, activity and certainly not the only one. And, BTW, there is also a need to change the disambiguation page, because the header is misleading: "Ubuntu is a computer operating system that uses the Linux kernel. Ubuntu may also refer to:...". If you look at the phrase this implies the other uses are things named otherwise, but with a secondary name which is "Ubuntu", but, in reality, for all of them the primary name is Ubuntu (and in many cases, like the philosophy, the only one). --Camahuetos (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Chris, above, and all the others. Guidelines are there for a reason. Let's use them. Jjatria (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. Per Chris and WP:NAME. Nobody had ever heard of Ubuntu before the OS, outside of southafrica. I haven't ever heard the term applied to the philosophy in a non-OS related source. Other examples abound: Compare Ford with Ford, where the former is a geographical concept of critical historical significance, and the following is the name of some auto manufacturer. Kopete means "booze" in Chile, and it has an almost sociological meaning that could very well merit an article on Chilean alcohol-consumption habits, but Kopete points to some IM-client. Firefox points to a web browser instead of the animal, the fictional plane, the novel or the scooter, all of which preceded the browser chronologically. etc etc etc. Gorgonzola (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just noticed that of the five articles refered in the desambiguation page, one is directly related to the OS, one is only a stub, one makes no mention either of the OS or the philosophy, and the other two (this and this) mention the linux distro and the philosophy. I strongly believe that the criteria for asignation of the title is clear, if you consider that the OS is more pervasive than the philosophy even in the articles referred to by the disambiguation page. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As one of many Ubuntu users(both the OS and ascribing to the philosophy), I'd just like to add that when I went looking for 'Ubuntu', back in the days before editing, I was looking for the Linux distro.
Comment While I'm as friendly as the next guy towards a survey, this one seems to have gotten a bit off track amidst the differing viewpoints of a myriad of users. Vu1kan (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Demands Sanity - Wikipedia is losing it. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Ubuntu, and any other term that has several instances/meanings should lead to a disambiguation page, where people select what specification they want to follow. Like browsing in a bloody dictionary, for Pete's sake! --89.180.191.40 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaunty Jackalope

Jaunty Jackalope, is new ubuntu code name. See http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10040226-16.html --75.150.49.61 (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Jaunty will be Ubuntu 9.04. Ubuntu 8.10 will be something else. https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2008-September/000481.html Abhishek (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
8.10 is still The Intrepid Ibex--The Saxon (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia switched to Ubuntu

I just wanted to inform anyone interested that wikipedia has switched to the Ubuntu operating system, as mentioned here:

I would insert that info myself but I'm not sure were to place it, nor if it's appropriate... SF007 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu 8.10 (Intrepid Ibex) released

Altonbr (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation link 74 appears to be a spam link.

Within the text of the article, citation link 74 is listed as an example of an online publication relating to Ubuntu. The fact that the website linked to offers software available for Ubuntu isn't what I would consider a publication relating to Ubuntu. The link points to [1]. 116.212.217.2 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the whole lot. The only secondary source is to a statement by Shuttleworth that an ecosystem had sprung up; all the links were advertising, leading to various projects' home pages. Gone. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

DistroWatch "sources"

The references titled "distro05", "distro06" and "distro07" are automatically generated. As such, they are no more valuable than Google results pages. These should be replaced with a source written by a human which describes the trend alluded to in the article. If this doesn't happen, they'll be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Linux distro or an independent operating system?

Since all the GNU/Linux community consider Linux an open source operating system, which can be customized and distributed, and Ubuntu is a Linux distro, what is the reason for saying that Ubuntu is a "operating system based on Linux" (independent), instead of a Linux distro? Note that the official name of Debian, in which Ubuntu is based, is "Debian GNU/Linux", and even some distributions based on Ubuntu are referred as Linux distros, e.g., Linux Mint. If one refers to Ubuntu as an "operating system based on Linux", refers to an hypothetical independent kernel of Ubuntu derived from Linux (but different), and it's not the case. So, I would like to suggest changing the presentation of the article, making clear that Ubuntu is a distribution of Linux, not an operating system itself, for avoiding misconceptions of the readers. Fsolda (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not too sure what you are asking, the article states that it is based on Debian, and that it is a Linux Distro. Where are your indicated references made? ffm 03:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Huh #2 :p
Ubuntu is an operating system and a Linux distro too. All Linux distros are operating systems. Please make your point clear? - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the edit in question I think. --Falcorian (talk) 05:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

While it's probably not necessary, I'll add that it seems clear to me that Ubuntu is not an operating system. If the kernel is by itself or not seems more debatable, but referring to a distro as an OS, is miss leading and has nothing to back it up. It's good the edits made to the contrary were undone.--Keithonearth (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason why I wrote

Ubuntu is a free computer operating system based on Debian GNU/Linux.

rather than

Ubuntu is a free distribution of the computer operating system Linux, based on the Debian distribution.

Is because Ubuntu is an operating system. It is based on Debian, which uses GNU and Linux quite heavily. The combination of GNU and Linux can be called an operating system because, using those tools, it is UNIX-like and UNIX-complete and UNIX is an operating system. A distribution is usually referred to as such because, while (usually) based on GNU and Linux, the maintainers will also package and distribute their operating system with different products, software and services (e.g. Ubuntu has Rhythmbox while OpenSUSE uses Banshee, etc.). Thus, Linux is not an operating system (nor is it a distribution, for that matter) and neither is GNU. The packaging of Linux and GNU together can be called an operating system (albeit bare boned) and when smaller entities such as software differ between Linux/GNU operating systems, it is more correct (or specific) to call them a distribution. Either is correct in this case, but calling it an operating system is more broad and on par with Windows or Mac than merely calling it a "Linux distribution". What are your thoughts Falcorian? Altonbr (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
The case of Linux is different of Windows and Mac. Both Windows and Mac have their own kernels, and these kernels are not used by any other operating system. But it's not the case of Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution. The Linux community uses "Linux" not only for the kernel, but to any distribution including the kernel, the X11 Window System and the GNU components - this is also the reason for the claims of Richard Stallman to call the operating system "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux". Furthermore, nobody develop a software or driver "for Ubuntu", "for OpenSuSE", "for Mandriva", etc; but "for Linux". Fsolda (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Mach kernel is used in Mac OSX, GNU Hurd, MachTen, NEXTSTEP, Lites, and Unicos, to name a few. Oh, and people _do_ develop for the Ubuntu platform... In any case, you havn't been clear about what change you want. ffm 14:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
No. These operating systems have derivatives of the Mach kernel, not the Mach kernel itself, differently of Ubuntu and other Linux distributions, which use the Linux kernel itself, not some Linux derivative. If one develop apps for running in the Ubuntu "platform", the program will run in any other Linux distribution, unless the program is for managing system packages using some specific configurations of Ubuntu, or any other Linux distro. Fsolda (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
About the change, my suggestion is saying in the first phrase: "Ubuntu is a distribution of Linux", not "Ubuntu is an operating system based on Linux", for making it more clear. Fsolda (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Why complicate?!?! Is Ubuntu a car? a plane? a train? a website? NO? it is software that you can install "directly on hardware" to make a computer usable. And what do we call that? An Operating system!! right? It might be a Linux distro, but hey, then someone will want to call it a GNU/Linux distro, besides, "Operating System" is much more easy to understand than "Linux distribution". Articles are for a wide audience. Jerebin (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Example: I create a modified version of Microsoft Windows (it is possible!), does it suddently stops being an "operating system"? to be a "windows distribution"? Please keep it simple. Jerebin (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Depends on which are the modifications. If the modifications are on the Windows kernel, you are making a new operating system derived from Windows. But if the modifications are in other things - bundled programs, another visual theme, etc; but using the Windows kernel, it's still Windows. Fsolda (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Still Windows? Then it's still an operating system. And why is this section titled "Linux distro or an independent operating system?"? Who's trying to call it an "independent" operating system? - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Since someone specifically asked my opinion ( how thoughtful :-) ), it is this: I prefer the version most similar to "Ubuntu is an OS based on Linux... blah blah", and believe this most correctly describes Ubuntu. --Falcorian (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I think phrasing the question as "or" is flawed. Yes, Ubuntu is an Operating System, specifically, it is a GNU/Linux Distribution. --Logotu (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
And also a Linux distro. Both of which are stated in the lead, but the second of which doens't need to be mentioned in the first paragraph/sentance. ffm 21:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's clarify this - I believe the original change was made as part of a wider move to avoid the GNU/Linux naming controversy by avoiding having to pick between "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" in the lede. Furthermore, both "Linux distribution" and "operating system" are valid, because all distros are operating systems. While the current compromise is not perfect, that's not the point of compromises. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The article characterizes Ubuntu as a "fork" of Debian. Currently, 4 out of 5 packages in Ubuntu come from straight from Debian without changes. Shouldn't the "fork" language, throughout the article, be changed to read "based on" or something which indicates that Ubuntu continues to pull in code from Debian regularly rather than truly "forking" off on its own? Ean Schuessler (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
If you label Ubuntu as an independent OS, you must label Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and all the variants as independent OSs as well. In fact, Ubuntu desktop and Ubuntu Server differ quite substantially, so must each be called a different OS logically, if one accepts that the OS is Ubuntu and not Linux. Calling Ubuntu an independent OS is foolish. Many authors do indeed refer to it as Ubuntu Linux, and components for the OS are all called Linux components, not Ubuntu components. Ubuntu is a distro and always has been. Baaaaa! Perspectoff (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Folks, it is clearly a GNU/Linux based operating system. Under the hood it has the same foundation as any other GNU/Linux OS. The various sources outside Wikipedia refer to is as such. This isn't for us to decide, we should just document what the sources say. Chillum 13:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

.exe

Can this os read Windows executable files? -- penubag  (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

In Wine it can. - Team4Technologies (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Limited number of applications only though. Check the database. -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 19:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this info guys. -- penubag  (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu can also run a whole host of emulators such as xen, virtualbox, kvm, vmware, etc... that can run windows itself allowing for many more windows executables to be ran. Chillum 04:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot

Surely a screenshot that is 95% desktop background is pointless. It would be more illustrative to have a screenshot with a few typical desktop applications running in it.87.194.156.49 (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, maybe a screen shot with Synaptic, and firefox or something. I'd be happy to make the screen shot if others agree with changing it. Bodsda (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea rCX (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Difficulty reading

Does anybody else find this article difficult to read with so many of the words linked to other articles? Bodsda (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. The lede has basically every noun linked. I've fixed this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The lede is much better now, thanks Chris. Quick question: If we link 'GNOME' to its page at the top of the article do we have to link every instance of the word throughout the rest of the article or not? I'm new to wiki editing so im not too sure on these things. Thanks Bodsda (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
No we don't link every instance of the word. Usually linking to an article once is sufficient. WP:MOS is a good place to start reading. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks 'Onpopular Opinion' i read the link and it clarifies some things I was curious of. I'l do some cleanup on this article and make it a bit more readable. Thanks alot for the info you put on my Talk page, I'l make sure I have a read of them before I edit anything. Thanks again Bodsda (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
To quote WP:MOSLINK:
this is usually on the first occurrence of the term, although the subsequent linking of an important item distant from its previous occurrence in an article may occasionally be appropriate in a table or in a subsection to which readers may jump directly, either within the article or via a section-link from another article.
ffm 14:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok so a word should not be linked twice in a paragraph or near each other, so does that mean that from these examples 1)replacing the default GNOME system used by Ubuntu (Para 3 of lede) 2)New releases of Ubuntu coincide a month after GNOME releases. (Para 1 under history) Should the latter be linked? Also the quote says that links should be there if in a table, what about the list of Ubuntu Variants, which has gnome linked in the first 3 bullets of the list, should only one of them be linked? Bodsda (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mobile netbook release of Ubuntu

I apologize if this was discussed previously in the Archives, but would it be prudent to have this page include information about Ubuntu being offered on netbooks? - Team4Technologies (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the Variants section. Also it has its own article, I cant see what it would add to the article either. Bodsda (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Non related screenshots

The screenshots in this article do not seem to convey anything appropriate to the sections which they are in. (except the kubuntu one) The main intrepid picture show the GNOME desktop environment and a picture, which doesnt really convey ubuntu as an operating system. The add/remove screenshot has nothing to do with its section "History and development process". The 6.06 screenshot shows nothing more than what is already conveyed by the intrepid screenshot and also has nothing to do with its section "Features". Finally we have the server screenshot which, again, has nothing to do with its section "Alternate Installation". I'm reasonably new to wikipedia so i dont know if this is normal structure for pictures in articles, but to me those screenshots dont add anything useful to the article. I'd be happy to replace them if people agree with me. Thanks, Bodsda (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Replacing / moving them seems like the thing to do. I look forward to seeing your work. --Falcorian (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
And what do you propose? Deletion? SF007 (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I propose I add different screenshots tonight. Bodsda (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
New/moved screenshots for sure. The article is starting to feel dated with it's lack of media (sounds, video, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.94.160 (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikibook

I suggest a wikibook about Ubuntu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.84.130.2 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There is one, it needs a lot of work though. Bodsda (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu/Linux on Windows?

Hello fellow editors, I'm not 100% sure if this is real/possible, but here is are some screens of Ubuntu/Linux running on Windows:

http://hacktolive.org/wiki/Portable_Ubuntu_for_Windows

-Jerebin

Just tried it and it is true! Jerebin (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes it's true. I have been using it for awhile.—Sandahl (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I mean I have been using Ubuntu for quite awhile.—Sandahl (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Virtualisation is very real and has been around for quite a while. --Aseld talk 07:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks like this has been added to the article now: [2]. I'm not convinced that this is really that notable – other than using a different virtualisation method it doesn't seem that different from running under VMware or VirtualBox. It certainly seems weird to call the package "Portable Ubuntu" when it is less portable than Ubuntu is to start with … --James (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: It's no longer really significant, as the KDE project has released it's windows installer (runs kde programs with the oxygen theme in the same environment as windows explorer). This is somewhat common knowledge now, and whatever information added about "portable ubuntu" should be changed to virtualisation or a more generic term. Viet|Pham (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
But that is still very different from running ALL Linux apps on top of Windows like Portable Ubuntu (yes, that is very similar to a Virtual Machine) --SF007 (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly a lot of confusion here - with each 'clarification' muddying the waters even further. Please be very careful that everything you put into the article is relevant and specific to Ubuntu, is referenced, and says exactly what the reference says.

Please distinguish, at least, that is has been possible for some years to run any Linux OS in a virtual machine on MS Windows and that several virtualisation systems allow a 'transparent' Linux desktop, so that Linux apps appear to be running alongside MS Windows apps. In fact the MS Windows apps are 'appearing' through a transparent, full-screen, virtualised Linux desktop. Nothing specific to Ubuntu here. Secondly, all KDE apps are based on the Qt (toolkit), which has always been cross-platform, including the ability to run on MS Windows and most Linuxes. There is a project at http://windows.kde.org/ that seems to be devoted to getting all the KDE stuff working on MS Windows, but it says, "KDE on Windows is not in the final state, so applications can be unsuitable for day to day use yet." This has nothing whatsoever to do with Ubuntu, and very little to do with Linux in general apart from the fact that most KDE apps already work on most Linuxes including Ubuntu. It also has nothing to do with virtualisation either as far as I know.

Also, be aware that in the world of free and open-source software (FLOSS), you can often download and install things that barely work and really are not finished. This is not wrong - you are free to help to finish them off if you have the skills - but don't be surprised when such things don't work. If the version number is less than 1.0 (e.g. 0.4 etc) of if the website says in bold, "unsuitable for day to day use", don't mix this up with stable, released and trustworthy things like Ubuntu, KDE and Linux themselves. --Nigelj (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Security on Ubuntu

Why is there no mention of security in Ubuntu? Apart from the line about closed ports for added security? --Neutralle (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, of course, there should be a security subsection, most likely under the package classification and support section (since supported packages get security updates). Scott Ritchie (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

FA renomination

I noted this article has recently got big work on, and I think its good for FA again. S I'm making this survey before nominating.

I think that to be eligible, the article needs to be expanded five fold, which would be pretty darn big based on the pre-existing Ubuntu Page. - Team4Technologies (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I think you're thinking of WP:DYK. Featured Articles have no "Must have been expanded by a factor of N" requirements. --Falcorian (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Needs Work I do not believe it is ready for FA. It was tough to get it up to GA, and not very much has happened since then. --Falcorian (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu based off Debian being a criticism

I would like to say I agree with this edit and the reasoning behind it. Chillum 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That edit misrepresents the source, please re-read the whole source. (Hypnosadist) 11:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess! I suppose it's always nice to have a talk page section devoted to the general accclamation of one of your edits... ;-) -- simxp (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How does removing that section misrepresent a source? Am I misunderstanding you? Chillum 14:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chillum, even the most hardcore ubuntu hater would not see the fact the Ubuntu is a fork of Debian as a criticism... (And the sources do not seem to make it a criticism) SF007 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Removing the section is fine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Why not still mention it somewhere? If you think basing an operating system off of beta software is a good thing, then we could just put it in the first sentence and let readers decide.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Ubuntu's history and development process is extensively discussed in the section unsurprisingly entitled "History and development process"... -- simxp (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the one that wrote that edit. I didn't realize that this was actually already mentioned in the History section. Anyway, here comes the bare bones critique: I think many Ubuntu users don't know that Canonical (the company that "owns" Ubuntu) makes money by selling Ubuntu-related services to companies (similar to what Red Hat does). I believe it is morally questionable for Canonical (Ubuntu) to be making money off of the Debian developers work. Its like if Microsoft decides to scrap Windows and start to sell a rebranded FreeBSD by taking advantage of the BSD license. How can anybody use Ubuntu, when they know the history behind it? Anyway, I thought it relevant to point this out. Thanks. VShaka (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Ever heard of OS X? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.142.163 (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
First, the moral issue: Debian is licensed under the GPL. The GPL specifically allows commercial re-use. If the creators had wanted to disallow that, then they would have used a different license. I license all my software under the GPL as I consider someone making a profit from my work to be a lesser evil than that particular restriction on freedom.
Debian incorporates modules with a number of licenses, not just the GPL.Perspectoff (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, the moral issue is kind of irrelevant here; this is an encyclopedia, and any criticism must be validly referenced *as a criticism*. Listing it as such without such a reference is WP:OR. --Aseld talk 13:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Operating system family

This post refers to this edit, which replaced "Unix-like" with "GNU/Linux" under operating system family. I disagree with this edit, but I suspect that the issue may be contentious and I don't want to start an edit war so I'm seeking comment here.

My argument is as follows: Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. Moreover, it refers to a *specific* kernel - i.e., the one written in the early '90s by Linus - not a family, whereas "Unix-like" unambiguosly refers to a group of operating systems united by a similar design, encompassing UNIX, Solaris, the BSDs and all operating systems that use the Linux kernel.

Misread the edit - new argument below.

GNU/Linux is a specific operating system, not a family. The term can refer to only one operating system, that created by combining Linux and the GNU software. Each Linux distribution is just that - a distribution, not a new OS. "Unix-like" unambiguously refers to a group of operating systems united by a similar design, encompassing UNIX, Solaris, the BSDs and all operating systems that use the Linux kernel.

Thoughts? --Aseld talk 13:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Unix-like" is a compromise to avoid lame edit wars over the GNU/Linux naming controversy. If there's any argument over the correct term, that's the one we should use. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the community has to decide. Ubuntu, Fedora, Slackware, etc. are operating systems by their own right or are only Linux distributions? I agree with the statement that Linux is an operating system, and Ubuntu is only a distribution of Linux. Some time ago I tried to change the statement "Ubuntu is an operating system" to "Ubuntu is a Linux distribution", unsuccessfully. Other users insisted that Ubuntu and any other Linux distributions are operating system by their own right until my patience reached the limit and, for not starting an edition war, I decided to agree with them, at least in the article (but, if one ask me what operating system I have in my computer, I will reply: ""I use Linux" instead of "I use Ubuntu"). So, if Ubuntu is an operating system by its own right, so Ubuntu belong to the Linux family. Instead, if Ubuntu is not an operating system, but a Linux distribution, the article should be corrected to: "Ubuntu is a Linux distribution based on Debian". Saying that "Ubuntu is a unix-like operating system", without mention to Linux, is an incoherence. Fsolda (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Please avoid editing the article until a consensus is reached. We don't want a war here.

I disagree. Linux is not a *family* of operating systems; it is a kernel (or a single operating system, depending on where you stand in the Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate). In the Linux article itself, which uses the operating system infobox, the OS family is listed as Unix-like. I argue that, by extension, this family should apply to all variants of GNU/Linux, including Ubuntu.

Saying that Ubuntu is a Unix-like OS without mention to Linux *in that sentence* is not incoherent, it is a statement of fact. Of course the fact that Ubuntu uses the Linux kernel should be mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox under "OS family". In fact, it's already in the infobox, under "Kernel type".

Again: please no edits to "OS family" until consensus is reached here. --Aseld talk 14:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. --Falcorian (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but "unix-like" is not a "family" of operating systems. It's only an informal way for indicating that the operating system has similarities to Unix. Systems like BSD, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and others are directly based on the original Unix system, and they are recognized as "Unix systems" by The Open Group, so it's true saying these systems belong to a "Unix" family. But the same doesn't apply to Linux (or GNU/Linux, the choice between these two names is not important). Linux was built from scratch, and, despite its similarities to Unix, it's not a Unix system and constitute a family of operating systems by itself. The same happen with Windows, which don't belong to any other major family. But, if we consider the Linux distros as operating systems by their own right, then they are part of the "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" family. Moreover, while the Unix systems follow the specifications of the Open Group, the Linux systems follow the specifications of the Linux Standard Base.
A "family" of operating systems should be compared to a families of languages, religions, live beings, etc. i. e., two elements belong to the same family if both have the same origin. I will compare the relationship between Linux and Unix to the relationship between the Esperanto language and the Indo-European family. Languages like English, Portuguese and Polish belong to the Indo-European family because all of them come from a common "proto-indo-european" language. The vocabulary of Esperanto is based in the Indo-European languages, but it is a constructed language instead of a derivative of the proto-indo-european language, so we cannot state that Esperanto belongs to the Indo-European family. However, is there some named "Indo-European-like" language family where we should include Esperanto? No, certainly. Esperanto belongs to a language family which contain only the same Esperanto, and also Ido, which is a derivative. The same happens to Linux. It's based on Unix, but it's not a derivative of Unix, so it constitutes a separate family. Fsolda (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Unix-like only means "not Unix, but similar to Unix" which is applicable to the BSDs as well. I think the correct description is "GNU with Linux kernel". The BSDs don't use GNU nor Linux, so they are just "Unix-like". VShaka (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I think a good solution is setting the info about the system family as in the German Wikipedia:
\ GNU/Linux
\ Debian
\ Ubuntu
It's more informative, and certainly a better solution than simply mentioning "unix-like". Fsolda (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of the screenshot

At first the icons of Ubuntu desktop were changed, and now they have been replaced with black boxes? I agree that if we intend to show the user how Ubuntu looks right from the box, that nothing should be altered but I don't think black-boxing everything is a solution. Now I don't know the Wikipedia copyright laws but the icons we're censoring out here are the Ubuntu and Firefox icons, yet they are shown in the Ubuntu and Firefox article respectively! So we're allowed to show the Ubuntu logo on the Ubuntu page, but not a smaller version of it, 2 cm under it? Can't we just use the same licenses we use on these two pictures? This doesn't make sense to me. --BiT (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I replaced it with a "normal version" of the screenshot. That was censored because some people on wikipedia and wikimedia commons don't like non-free logos/images. SF007 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Neurolysis put a {{deletable image-caption}} on the image, although it's not appearing in the rendered view, possibly due to some infobox problem. TRS-80 (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, User:JamesHenstridge points out that the Ubuntu icon comes from the ubuntu-artwork package which is licensed under CC-BY-SA and GPL, so only {{Trademark}} applies, the only problem remaining is the Firefox logo (which is well known to be non-free). FWIW I don't see the censored image as an acceptable replacement. TRS-80 (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Ubuntu and its derivatives change every 6 months, sometimes dramatically. Guidebooks, "tutorials", references, and websites that are 2-3 years old are misleading and confusing, and are not relevant to current versions of Ubuntu (and its derivatives). Many of the references and "Further Reading links" are mere advertising for books about Ubuntu versions that are long out of date and not even supported any longer. They provide a disservice to the community by providing currently inaccurate information. These have been commented out and will be removed unless valid justification for their retention can be made.

References pertinent to currently supported versions of Ubuntu should be retained, but there should be some effort to designate that the reference is applicable to a specific version of Ubuntu. Passeportout (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu Release Table

Current Release Table is, in My opinion, bloated. My proposition is to make it look more like the one from Debian release. I've made a sample (Ubuntu Release Table) to show the new look. List of changes:

  • Removed Ordinal Numbers. Maybe it was a mistake? It looks cleaner though..
  • Removed Alpha codenames as a) they aren't either important or informant and b) Ubuntu Developers has dropped them in favor of simple Alpha status
  • Removed tons of references to Release names, release dates, support dates - they are simple to find and not helpful in this table. Two exceptions are:
    • Codename of the next Release
    • Release date of Current Release
    • Maybe we should also keep references to End of Support for releases?
  • Added colors to Support column. It looks cleaner and more readable. At least IMO.

It would be nice to add column with highlighted release notes. Some major changes (like droping PPC support, switching to Pulseaudio etc.)

KrzysztofKlimonda (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that kind of tables a lot, they add "bloat" to the article, in my opinion MAYBE it was better to removed them or put them on another page... SF007 (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I think it as too many color, two were enough: supported and non-supported (or maybe a third color for alpha versions) - But I think the yellow color is not needed, what defines "old release"? Is Ubuntu 8.04 old? Just scrap that color and change it to green. SF007 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that this table is duplicated (There is second one with colors at List of Ubuntu releases) so I agree with SF007 that it should be removed from Ubuntu completely. The second one is still too detailed in my opinion. I've removed yellow color, changed color meaning to just "Unsupported Release", "Supported Release" and "Future Release": URT mockup. KrzysztofKlimonda (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool, that way is better, only a small remark: 6.06 LTS is still supported (and maybe change 9.04 to future? but since it is almost out does not make a big difference...) SF007 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed table from main article but this change was reverted. I'm not going to "rerevert" it as obviously someone thinks we should discuss this change further. So the question is if we should keep this (or mine) table or remove it. FWIW, I have to agree with SF007 that keeping it in the main article dosen't have to much sense. Especially when we have an article focused on Ubuntu releases with the same table. edit: and i've forgotten to sign myself.. KrzysztofKlimonda (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would remove the text and keep the table. A table is like 500 words. Similar to the saying a picture is like a 1000 words. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Went ahead and added the table back in. If you prefer it can be listed on the side next to the text. Similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Ubuntu_releases&oldid=288469997   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu Main Meaning

Although being a linux (sometimes ubuntu) user, I strongly disagree with the fact that ubuntu's first entrance is the OS and not the philosophy concept (from where its name was picked) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.36.36.177 (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick reply to this. I would say that more people think of Ubuntu linux when they search for that word than the philosophical meaning. Do a search on google for Ubuntu Linux and one for Ubuntu Philosophy - you'll see what I mean. Also, you'll see the latter also returns a lot of results pertaining to the OS.-Localzuk(talk) 22:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
It is a convenience to the readers. The first entrance is what readers are looking for by a 20:1 margin, it is not an indication of primary or main meaning. There are previous discussions about this. Just scroll up and see. To do otherwise would inconvenience 20 times the number of readers. I added a link to the philosphy at the top of the article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This link to the philosophy is a good idea. For the minority who end up here searching for the philosophy it will be the first thing they read. Chillum 01:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
This was discussed (and rejected) in a survey above in 2008.  GARDEN  10:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

8.Vendor Support

Just ordered an AMD64 (LE-1660) socket AM2 base unit from Meshcomputers.com with Ubuntu. SLUGLOVING (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I know the vendor support section for Dell is out of data, might want to check with other vendors and keep an eye on this section cause it changes fast. Spike the Dingo (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What really constitutes a release?

Ubuntu's often cited superiority to Debian is the notion that it makes "releases" every six months. I don't think it is fair, however, that Ubuntu acts as if these releases and their LTS (long term support) releases are the same thing. In my opinion, the LTS releases are the real releases and the 6-month state bookmarking is just a publicity stunt. From the perspective of an organization using the system for production work they cannot realistically run off anything but the LTS releases and the 6-month releases don't exist. Specifically, I would think that LTS users cannot upgrade to interim releases without voiding their support contracts. In contrast, all Debian releases are "supported" with security fixes and updates and come out roughly every 18 months. By this measure, the Debian release cycle beats Ubuntu by a full six months. I think this duality should be reflected in any part of this article which promotes the marketing-based "6 month release cycle" of Ubuntu. Ean Schuessler (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Ubuntu makes multiple releases in order to be productive not only for Ubuntu but for the whole Linux community, especially from the sense of having the platform that is trying to keep pace with the technology. The rate of technology growth is such that an OS, like WinXP, has to be able to grow or it has significant problems adapting to kind of use that is needed. Debian is wonderful, truly, but Ubuntu isn't Debian. Debian is more for professionals because of the support while Ubuntu is for enthusiasts and personal use. It's not exactly designed to be that way, but that seems to be the way it works. - Team4Technologies (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is completely irrelevant I'm afraid. Canonical call each of their normal and LTS releases by a new name, a new number and refer to it as a release. That is what we go by, not by whether or not you feel this is right or not.-Localzuk(talk) 22:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because one release is supported longer than another does not mean that the other is not a real release. Something is a release when Canonical decides to release it as a product. Chillum 01:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of LTS. Say now you have 1500 machines, and you want to install Ubuntu on them all, With a LTS you get updates for 5 years for the server edition, and 3 years for the desktop edition. The 6 month releases are more minor updates, but they do qualify as a whole new release. For instance, compare the boot speed of 8.10 intrepid Ibex and 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope. With a 6 month release cycle, it allows the Ubuntu developers to stay up to date with the Linux Kernel also. kn100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.58.40 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Page moves

There's some dispute currently over the proper target of the link to Ubuntu. I can get behind the idea that this page should be at Ubuntu (operating system), as it currently is, but not that Ubuntu should go directly to Ubuntu (philosophy). So, in my opinion, it should go either to Ubuntu (disambiguation) or continue to redirect here, which used to be the primary Ubuntu article. What do other people think? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss at the talk page of the redirect, Talk:Ubuntu. Of course we want to include editors of the Ubuntu (philosophy) page too. Yworo (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that's a particularly bad place to have the discussion, because nobody's watching it! It should have been discussed here and/or at the philosophy talk page first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The redirect talk page is exactly the right place to discuss it, because discussion it here biases it toward the OS. I will accept having the discussion at Talk:Ubuntu (philosophy), though, for that reason. Yworo (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
For everyone else, I sort-of take it back about a bad place for the discussion -- I opened an RFC on the subject, and put it on the redirect's talk page to have it in a central location. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Source Model

Regarding the mini-revert back-and-forth over the addition of free software to the source model, I want to agree with Grandscribe edit which has now been reverted twice with a comment to take it to the talk page. I wrote the original documentation on the Ubuntu website when the project started. At Ubuntu, we used both the terms free software and open source because, while the products and licenses are the same, the models and motivations are not. The use of both terms is common on the Ubuntu website and I don't see any serious disadvantage to mentioning both here and linking to both articles -- the free software and open source articles are different after all. Ubuntu itself says it's both, so I see no reason that this article shouldn't do the same. —mako๛ 19:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not that the link free software is not appropriate for the article, as its licensing model. It's simply not a source model. Source models include open source, closed source and shared source. There may be other source models, but those are the main three. Closed source is generally proprietary. Open source includes numerous different licensing models, one is the free software model, others are MIT, BSD, Apache, public domain, etc. etc. The problem is the context. It belongs under licensing, not source model. Put it in the right place and there is no problem. "Free software" is simply one of the many variants of open source software. Yworo (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's right - all the licenses you mention are both free software and open source. As the Debian project says "they both refer to essentially the same thing." I'm not really sure what a source model is (it appears to be a term of art used only on Wikipedia); but as both free software and open source refer to the same thing I find it hard to see how one could be a source model while the other isn't. Some prefer the emphasis of "open source" (which emphasizes the availability of the source code), others prefer "free software" (which emphasizes the freedoms associated with access to the source); it seems to me we should use whichever term the creators of the software use. In Ubuntu's case, this would mean using both "free software" and "open source".VoluntarySlave (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
"Free software" very specifically means Open Source software that is licensed with a GNU Public License of some sort. It does not apply to any other Open Source software. "Open Source" is the general term which does not also specify a particular license. "Free Software" is a more loaded term because it not only specifies the source model, but also specifies the licensing model. Using it as a source model is making a POV statement. It's generally only insisted upon by those who want to make a statement about the superiority of a particular set of Open Source licenses. Open Source is the more general term; it basically is license independent so long as the license meets minimal requirements for source openness. To get a better idea, public domain software is Open Source, but it is not Free Software, because the source code is not restricted in the ways the the GNU Free Software Foundation promotes. Most every Linux distribution, including Ubuntu, contains BSD licensed code. Since the BSD license is not a Free Software foundation license, most Linux distributions contain Open Source software which is not also Free Software. So besides not being a source model, the use of Free Software instead of Open Source is actually inaccurate as well. It's erroneous. Yworo (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a very idiosyncratic definition of "free software," one which isn't subscribed to by, for instance, the Free Software Foundation. Both public domain and BSD licenses are free software according to the FSF and the Debian Free Software Guidelines, so your argument that Ubuntu is not free software seems to me to be false. As free software places almost exactly the same restrictions on licensing as open source, I don't see how one is more a license model than the other. The best way to avoid POV here is to use sources, rather than make our own determination as to which is the best term to use for a given system. The best source I can think of in many cases is likely to be the choice of terms used by the creators of the system (although third party sources might well be better if they are available).VoluntarySlave (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Make it Free and open source software, provided that actually applies to all the software included and the vendor/provider documentation actually refers to "Free Software" (the article actually talks about how this term avoids bias); and use Open source or Open source software if there are exceptions (open source software which for one reason or another has a license not approved by the FSF), and I've got no further complaint. Putting both with a slash is IMO a poor way of doing it. Yworo (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yworo, you say that "'Free software' very specifically means Open Source software that is licensed with a GNU Public License of some sort. It does not apply to any other Open Source software." This is incorrect. If you look at the Debian Free Software Guidelines or the Free Software Foundation's Free Software Definition or list of approved free software licenses, you'll find that the terms open source and free software refer to the same licenses. I'm arguing that they refer to different source models. Of course, since source model seems to be a word made up by Wikipedians and not used seriously anywhere else, that may be a hard argument for any of us to win. —mako๛ 05:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yworo should cite his sources: where did he get that authoritative definition: "Free software" very specifically means Open Source software that is licensed with a GNU Public License of some sort."...??? Did it come from himself? Yworo removed "free software" simply because HE does NOT like it. He has asked other users to aid him and even privately asked a user to ban me for no other reason than restoring a term that until he started deleting was being used without any problem since "free software" is the term used by the developers themselves to refer to Ubuntu as they explicitly mention on their website. Ubuntu developers use the term "free software". In addition Ubuntu developers also mention they use "free software guidelines" to develop the software for ubuntu. The links to the sources I used were given.--Grandscribe (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Since Ubuntu refers to both, Free and open source software seems to resolve the issue. If you have some objection to that, please specify. Yworo (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! Thanks Yworo! I would prefer the phrase "free software and open source" in the link text since I think it's more clear to have "free" with "software" since that's the term most people use and open source doesn't need to have software after it to make sense. That said, I don't feel too strongly either way. Glad we could resolve this so quickly! —mako๛ 05:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't notice your response due to the subsequent comments. The reason for the exact wording is that FOSS (free and open source software) has become the popular inclusive term for both. Since there is already an article at that link and since the FOSS acronym is well known, changing the wording might be found confusing to those who are familiar with FOSS. Yworo (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
By the way this how user Yworo tried to "build" consensus and push his Point Of View:
"I went to put my thoughts on that discussion about the template, and found I already had. Of course, I think the chances that Grandscribe will join the discussion to be about nil, based on past experience. He ought to be blocked for a few hours now and then. Yworo (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ahunt
--Grandscribe (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
My comment was based on your repeatly changing without discussing. Now you are discussing so it is moot. Please address my point. Yworo (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Grandscribe, Yworo has already proposed a reasonable solution. Please respond to that on this page. If you've got an issue with the way that he has acted toward you, take that to this talk page or to some other more appropriate space. —mako๛ 06:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Wkipedia has an article named Free software and another named open source. The ideas behind the two concepts may be similar but they are not exactly the same. That is why they exist as two different articles. Free software is a valid term with a broad scope used by many Ubuntu project developers to refer to their work. The use of two terms Free software / Open source poses no problem. It helps the reader go to the definition of each respective term. So it should be put that way.--Grandscribe (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Mako gives a good alternative "free software and open source". I would support it. The words "free software" must be put together in any case.--Grandscribe (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The now commonly used inclusive term is free and open source software. It is abbreviated FOSS and there is an article on it. Changing the word ordering would be confusing, since the acronym is not FSOS. Yworo (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yworo should stop inmediately editing other articles related to the matter under this discussion while this is still going on. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNewSense&action=history Didn't you say one should not go around wikipedia changing something that has an issue without at least discussing with the editors at the article's respective page? Who's repeatly changing without discussing ??? --Grandscribe (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Please discuss the topic and not what you think of me. This is the last time I will warn you about that. The term free software is linked multiple times from the article. I am simply looking for the single link that best fits the source model field in the template. In this case, that's free and open source software. If I was attempting to put bias into the article, I'd be changing every instance of free software. Though perhaps we should reduce the number of links in the article to free software, since Wikipedia standard is only to link the first occurence, not subsequent ones. Yworo (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the "source model" field be deprecated from the OS Infobox. See Template talk:Infobox_OS#Source model. --Ashawley (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal with list of releases page

I think that the List of Ubuntu releases page should be merged into the releases section of the main article. The fact that there are two releases a year means that the differences between successive releases is relatively minor (compared to differences between Windows releases). Most of the sections in the list article just contain information about the packages contained in each release, which could just be replaced with the existing table. Also, other major distributions do not appear to have a separate article for a list of releases (Debian, openSUSE, Fedora).  [ mad pierrot ]  18:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This information was originally in this article but was split out from it on 10 September 2008 because it made the article too long. The discussion on doing this is in Archive 9. - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
But the current information on each version is a short description of the release date and the packages contained, and some of them contain a short blurb about the improvements over the previous release. If you trim down this information, you are left with the name of the version, the release date, the date when support ends, and the packages contained. This could be re-integrated into the main article without significantly bloating it.  [ mad pierrot ]  19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the merge ONLY if the portion to be included (in the Ubuntu OS article) is slimmed-down to 30% (or less) of the List of Ubuntu releases article. Otherwise a full merge would add enourmous bloat to the Ubuntu article. I also think that should be merged, but lots of useless info, like the history of the programs should go away. SF007 (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to the merge, it'll either clutter up this page or result in a net loss of information. Either result would be inferior to the current situation. --Falcorian (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I too am opposed to the merger. It'll severely clutter up the article, making it hard to load for people with slow internet connections. There was a reason the list was split in the first place. I think it'll be better to keep them separate. Airplaneman talk 23:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
oppose Article needs to be just a quick summary, would make article long and tedious. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
oppose based on article length. Arguement about minor differences between releases indicate info that shouldn't be in the main article, so best kept separate. Widefox (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
oppose based on article length, and because older versions are no longer supported anyway. Besides, the section was split off after this discussion was concluded previously. (Bloody Johnny-come-latelys). Perspectoff (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
oppose remerging the content would make the main article too long or would cut out encylopedic content. there's not enough for each version to have it's own article, so the current setup is the best solution. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Multics family

Moved to Talk:Mac OS X
 – Subsection is Talk:Mac OS X#Multics Family --Tothwolf (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we re-classify this article under 'OS family: Multics' in the info box, for the reason that Unix is based on Multics. MFNickster (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Please keep discussion on this in a single place, specifically Talk:Linux#Multics_family -- Limulus (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This discussion began in Talk:Mac OS X. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

The only negative thing in the entire article is the "lack of an integrated desktop effects manager". There are certainly bigger, deeper problems than this one random little thing. If this article were NPOV, they would be addressed. You might start with the most popular requests on Ubuntu Brainstorm, for instance. http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/most_popular_ever/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.73.107 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 September 2009

That would be original research. If you know of any reliable third-party sources sources which discuss problems with Ubuntu, please let us know. Such material could be used as a basis for expanding the article. Yworo (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
When we went through the GA process we added what criticism we could based on published material (there was not a lot of it). Some of that has since been removed since it dealt with problems from older versions that have since been fixed. --Falcorian (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tip about changing the screenshot

If you are going to change any of the screenshots, please make sure the caption is updated (if necessary) to reflect the changes. For example, if you are going to replace a screenshot showing the Shiki Colors theme with a screenshot showing the New Wave theme, please make sure that you change the name of the theme in the caption. Thanks. --Mr. Corgi (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Opening the can of worms again

Ubuntu is, strictly speaking, NOT an operating system. Rather, it is a specific variant of the Debian distribution of GNU/Linux, the best definition I've seen of which is here. At the risk of re-opening the can of worms, suggest moving this and similar pages to "Ubuntu (Linux distribution", renaming as appropriate. Alan (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So, if my computer is running Ubuntu, are you saying it is working without an OS? --Nigelj (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
No. It's working on the Ubuntu distribution of the GNU/Linux OS. Alan (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. That's a long name for the OS, usually shortened just to 'Ubuntu', (or 'Fedora', or 'Suse', or whatever) or just 'Linux', but that is the OS. What is your agenda that you want to pretend it's not an OS? I know people who think Ubuntu still runs on top of Windows, even after I've formatted their hard drive for them. Don't make it any harder for them. --Nigelj (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, shortening the name of the underlying OS results in 'Linux'[[3]]...of which Ubuntu is a specific variant, just as SuSE, Fedora, Mandriva, Gentoo, Puppy, DSL, and at least seventy or eighty more distributions are all variants of Linux. [[4]] Alan (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and each one of them, when installed and running on a computer, is an operating system. --Nigelj (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. And they're all Linux. QED. Alan (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Its like the difference between choosing the name of a class and choosing the name of an instance:
UbuntuGnuLinuxOs ubuntu = new UbuntuGnuLinuxOs();
Most people reading an encyclopedia article about Ubuntu will be thinking about what is it like to have a computer running Ubuntu (create an instance of the OS), rather than what was it like to design the distribution (create a class of OSes) --Nigelj (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
My computer's OS is Mac OS X 10.5 ... or are you telling me that I'm running a distribution of Darwin? Or is Darwin just a distribution of BSD, in your opinion? No, OS X is an operating system. And Ubuntu is an operating system.
Also, the analogy to Java classes/instances is incorrect. "Ubuntu", if you believe in analogies, is a class. It is a subclass of "Debian" (which is in turn a subclass of "GNU/Linux"). "Ubuntu" inherits from it's superclasses ("Debian", "GNU/Linux", "Operating System", etc.) but is not identical. If you install "Ubuntu" on your PC, you then have an instance of "Ubuntu" (i.e. it has been instantiated).
In short, Ubuntu is an OS. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It's an interesting analogy, but it doesn't follow. Apple purchased the rights to base OS X on Darwin, and sufficiently tailored the code to run specifically on their hardware. From both a programming and legal standpoint, OS X is a standalone, dedicated OS, intended for operation on a specific architecture, just as [[Solaris (operating system]|Solaris]] is a dedicated OS intended for operation on Sun's hardware. This is different from Ubuntu, or any other variant of GNU/Linux, in that any x86-based variant of Linux should run on any x86-based hardware platform, and the only difference the end user will see is whatever boot-time splash screens have been included and whatever windowing system (if any!) is started on entry into the appropriate runlevel. Alan (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
So? Some operating systems support only a limited set of hardware (e.g. Nokia OS), other operating systems support a broad range of hardware configurations (e.g. Windows 98). The range of hardware configurations that an OS supports is not the defining quality of an OS.
Let me ask you, if I download and install Ubuntu will I have set of applications (i.e. a system) that will manage hardware and software resources and act as an interface to these resources on behalf of other applications running on my computer? If so, Ubunto is an operating system. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Alan, your initial point was, "Ubuntu is, strictly speaking, NOT an operating system". What you are now arguing is that if it runs in the same way as some other operating system, or shares some code that's programmatically and legally identical to that used in some other OSes, then it's not an operating system? What I think you meant is it's not a unique OS that shares no code with any other OS. But that's because it's a FLOSS OS, a collaborative effort. If you can install it on a bare computer and it makes the thing work, it's an operating system. --Nigelj (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
(Small comment: a good deal of OS X is FLOSS.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
You are correct...Ubuntu is not a unique OS. Let me ask this, though...if one examines the filesystem of a given variant of GNU/Linux, be it Ubuntu, Mandriva, CentOS, or (fill in the blank), and looks specifically at the kernel, is it unique to that variant? I'd argue not. It is, in fact, functionally identical across all variants and distributions, with very, very few exceptions; I'd even go so far as to say that in its basic form, it is byte-for-byte identical across all variants. Some distributions may compile the kernel with differing options based on the intended user, e.g. Damn Small Linux stripping out most options and leaving a minimally-sized kernel, Rocks optimized for multicore/multithread cluster processing, and so on. However, the kernel itself is still the original product (and, last I knew, trademarked property of) Linus Torvalds, and therefore Linux. Only when one adds additional application layers and user-space functionality to the base kernel do the differences between distributions and variants appear. I therefore assert once more that Ubuntu is, of itself, NOT an unique operating system; it is a specific distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system, which IS unarguably unique. Alan (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Compare:
  • "Ubuntu is, strictly speaking, NOT an operating system." (10:15, 18 October 2009)
  • "Ubuntu is, of itself, NOT an unique operating system;" (20:15, 18 October 2009)
To keep the OS X comparison, Mac OS X is not a "unique" operating system: it shares a great deal code with BSD, its kernel is based on Mach, it conforms to the Unix specification, and so on. The fact that OS X is not "unique" does not negate against the fact that that as a software system falls into that category of software products that we call "operating systems". It is the same with Ubuntu. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
My point precisely...the kernel is based on Mach, but the source code is not byte-for-byte equivalent to that of Mach. The source code for the kernel upon which Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, and all other x86-based variants of GNU/Linux operates, however, IS byte-for-byte equivalent, and in fact is completely separately downloadable from Kernel.org, which OS X cannot boast since Apple has inserted proprietary code into that platform's kernel. Any kernel compiled from the downloaded source can be used as the base for any distribution of GNU/Linux, so long as the proper architecture is selected (x86, Sparc, etc.). This is one of the fundamental appeals of GNU/Linux in general, IMO: no matter what a group or company or individual elects to include in their particular distribution, the kernel is still independently maintained to preserve that interoperability. Alan (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. No-one says an operating system has to be entirely unique to still be an operating system. As FLOSS grows, there will be fewer highly secretive and proprietary OSes that are unique - even Windows has an /etc/hosts file inherited from BSD. So there's no need to rename the article. --Nigelj (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That depdnds on what you call an Operating System. Stricly speaking, Linux is not an Operating System, since it doesn't have functionality to let the user interact with it. The term GNU/Linux actually means Linux (the kernel) + GNU programs (like bash). Ubuntu, on the other hand, can be called a "fork" of GNU/Linux, and so its an operating system of its own right. FixmanPraise me 21:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Most people wouldn't call Ubuntu a fork of GNU/Linux. "Fork of X" implies independent development of X. Ubuntu does include both GNU tools and Linux, but they're mostly unchanged from upstream (except for additional drivers in the kernel to have it support more hardware). It's slightly more accurate to say it "bases off" GNU/Linux. But you still wouldn't actually say that in practice, since the thing Ubuntu bases off directly is Debian. By the way, if you read the discussion above, everyone discussing this knows all this already; the discussion is whether we should be calling Ubuntu an "operating system" or a "linux distribution" in the article name. -- simxp (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

People, do you even read sources of definition which you discuss ?

GNU's kernel isn't finished, so GNU is used with the kernel Linux. The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system, now used by millions.

Sometimes this combination is incorrectly called Linux. There are many variants or “distributions” of GNU/Linux.[1]

http://saeedgnu.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/gnu-linux_chart-3.png [2]

So, "Ubuntu" is a distribution of "GNU/Linux" operating system. A distibution. And it IS "GNU/Linux", but "GNU/Linux" is NOT Ubuntu. You see, "GNU" itself MAY be an Operating System since it has vast and working userspace and it has a kernel - Hurd. But it's incomplete and not used by almost, if not totally, anyone. That's why you do not know about The "GNU" Operating System and know about "GNU/Linux" or "GNU userspace on top of Linux kernel" Operating System.

So, "GNU/Linux" IS an Operating System BUT most of the _GNU userspace_ and _Linux kernel_ parts can be optionally enabled, disabled or interchanged, also non-GNU components may be added or even proprietary components. All of that together been put on public creates A Distribution which, for example, IS Ubuntu.

Ubuntu, Fedora, Gentoo, OpenSuSe or etc. is question of distribution policy and philosophy of key members in distributing organization, say Canonical, Novell, Gentoo Foundation or RedHat. Thing about "<something> Linux" is often just a trademark or oversimplified "term" for newcomers.

Do you know that YOU can actually create a "GNU/FreeBSD" out of Ubuntu and it will be an Operating System but it will not "Ubuntu" anymore ?

Or you can replace Gnome with KDE in it and get "GNU/Linux" Operating System which has different distributing policy and userspace components named, say, "Not_Kubuntu".

Ubuntu distribution consists of (=): distributor-customized Linux kernel + distributor-customized GNU userspace + distributor-chosen and distributor-customized Non-GNU Free software + distributor-chosen proprietary software, in which Linux is an absolute system core and GNU is core userspace for most other software layers and biggest layer itself. That's why term "GNU/Linux" is mostly always preferred but not mandatory.


All in all, You CAN call it an Operating System but really it IS a "GNU/Linux distribution from Canonical Ltd.", called (trademarked) "Ubuntu" which ,i insist, is preferred for encyclopedia.

And what it surely NOT is "Linux distribution". DamnedFoX (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is a variant of another operating system does not mean it is not an operating system. Seriously, every operating system is a variant of something or other. Chillum 05:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
People, there is no need to debate the origins of the code or the way one thing developed (or didn't develop) from another at all! If you take a 'bare metal' computer and install some base code on it and then it works - i.e. it operates in the way you want it to, and you can develop or install further applications on it that you want to run, and they work - then that base code must have been an operating system. End of. If it makes a bare computer work, it is an operating system. Ubuntu does this on many sets of hardware. So do lots of other things, but this is the Ubuntu article. --Nigelj (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.gnu.org
  2. ^ http://saeedgnu.wordpress.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ubuntu/Archive_10&oldid=1140148562"