Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Ubuntu (operating system) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Former good article Ubuntu (operating system) was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 5, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Linux (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
 
WikiProject Computing (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Open (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Ubuntu (operating system) is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Engtech article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Ubuntu (operating system):

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup: Avoid needless repetition - for example the ShipIt section already says Currently, only Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Edubuntu are offered for free via ShipIt. Other variants, including the popular Xubuntu are not available through this service.[91] (I would argue the second sentence here is not needed - the first sentence says it all).
  • Copyedit: The lead needs to be rewritten as a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. It should also not contain anything not repeated in the main article text - so the meanings of the word Ubuntu should go into the body, for example. There is also a substantial amount of redundant information in the article, in multiple sections.
  • Expand: Software Center now includes a working app store, where users can buy software that has been submitted via developer.ubuntu.com.
  • Update: The spoken version of this article is from 2007 and should be updated.
  • Other: References need more information - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. The cite templates such as {{cite web}} may be useful here.


Good article review[edit]

Ubuntu (operating system)[edit]

Article (edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted.–--Retrohead (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Lots of single sentences, poorly structured, although reasonably well referenced. Might be salvageable if somebody wants to take it on. Jamesx12345 13:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

There hasn't been any significant progress, so I'm delisting it. The article really needs one person to bring it together to a coherent whole, as it is there is a lot of redundant information and a large number of single sentence paragraphs. Jamesx12345 15:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition of self-published, general ref[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_%28operating_system%29&oldid=622201544&diff=prev First it's the wrong type of cite. Second, it's a bad cite since it doesn't actually point to anything. Third, it appears to be self-published, at least the "publisher", which is linked, is not notable (no article). Fourth, it's not from a recognized expert. Fifth, it's not clear what it's referencing. All of these reasons (and probably a dozen more) imply to me that it shouldn't be there but the editor who added it is edit warring to keep it in and left this note explaining why. Comments? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Uncited section[edit]

Removed for now:

At the beginning of a new development cycle, Ubuntu developers from around the world gather to help shape and scope the next release of Ubuntu. The summit is open to the public, but it is not a conference, exhibition or other audience-oriented event. Rather, it is an opportunity for Ubuntu developers, who usually collaborate online, to work together in person on specific tasks.
From 2013 February, Ubuntu Developer Summit (UDS) is organized online through Google+ Hangouts, any number of participants and viewers can participate. Online UDS is held on two different days instead of two consecutive days. The Online UDS video is archived and is available on the website.

Samsara (FA  FP) 12:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Large Scale Deployments[edit]

My local job-centre’s got a couple of public terminals for us job-seekers: with simplified versions of HP’s build of Ubuntu.

Is it worth investigating this, and giving it a mention … ?

Cuddy2977 (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be important to find out numbers. It seems likely that your job-centres were modified nation-wide rather than just locally. Where we have numbers for deployments, they're in the thousands of workstations. The ones where we don't have numbers for are the Indian justice system, Iceland and Obama's campaign. I suspect we could find news coverage mentioning numbers for India and Iceland, though, and they're probably in the thousands again. Samsara (FA  FP) 08:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
We should not mention them in the article without references, but it is worth mentioning if they can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I’ll put that on the back burner, for now, and see what I can find.

Cuddy2977 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the development model for Ubuntu?[edit]

User:Palosirkka, without providing references, inserted the claim that Ubuntu's development model is "open source and closed source". As I am not aware of any currently unaddressed queries about the open source character of Ubuntu, and note that Canonical are very outspoken about their full support for the open source model, I suggest that unless he can provide a reference supporting this claim, the article be returned to its previous state. Samsara (FA  FP) 12:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to look no further than the article itself to see there is non-free software in Ubuntu... One particular example is the Linux kernel which contains several firmwares with no source code. Palosirkka (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I asked you to provide references stating that the *development model* of Ubuntu is a closed source model. I.e. that the community developing Ubuntu is actively using closed source methodology. So can you provide a reference, or is this a case of original research? Samsara (FA  FP) 17:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
How do you think those included closed source parts were developed? Palosirkka (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll offer a comparison. I have a video card on my Ubuntu 14.04 box. There are both proprietary drivers and drivers that are open source. Neither set of drivers are available through the default repositories: they have to be added to the repositories. This means that it's a bad example. However, other closed-source products are offered through the "store", but they can be selected out. Palosirkka: do you mean to imply the core code such as the kernel, common utilities and core code? It's all open source. However, not all applications are open source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Walter, user choosing to install or not install a part of ubuntu does not change the development model of the part in question. Palosirkka (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
By the same line of thinking, all versions of Windows are also open source because open source software can be installed on them. So following your logic, Palosirkka, we get reductio ad absurdum. Samsara (FA  FP) 21:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I never stated that it changed the development model. I was asking a question of Palosirkka. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Samsara, Windows doesn't have any repositories at all so the analogy is deeply flawed. There is windows update but I don't know whether they distribute open source stuff there. If they do, please feel free to edit the windows article. Palosirkka (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The first source at the recent edit doesn't support the idea that there is closed source (or proprietary source) and the second requires interpretation and is a WP:PRIMARY source that requires interpretation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Walter, do not revert but discuss. Try reading the reference 1 again... It clearly states that only the ubuntu "main" repository requires source code made available under a free license. Software that doesn't do that is closed source software and is put to the other ubuntu repositories. If you want a non-primary source for the claim the kernel contains closed source software, e.g. here's one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palosirkka (talkcontribs) 06:44, 17 October 2014‎
Providing something in a repository is a significantly different action compared to participating in its development. You have not provided any reliable sources stating that the Ubuntu community actively develops closed source software that is then included in Ubuntu. Samsara (FA  FP) 06:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Palosirkka: You're actually the one reverting. There are multiple editors restoring the established version and you're adding original research, primary sources and material that requires interpretation.
The issue is simple: Ubuntu has core code and that is open source. Just because I can add proprietary software to Ubuntu does not mean that it uses it as part of its model. It allows it as part of its development model.
What you need is a WP:SECONDARY source that supports your opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So apparently http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/licensing supports that Ubtunu uses "Proprietary software in a non-default area". I don't see that there. What am I missing? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh and of course, if it is there, it shouldn't be added with a line break. A comma should separate the additional information and there should be no capital letter to start "proprietary". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
And most important, infoboxes are to be a summary of the article and not contain references, unless it can be helped. This is not discussed in the article. See WP:INFOBOXREF. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It says, we install some hardware drivers that are available only in binary format, but such packages are clearly marked in the restricted component under "software installed by default". It sounds like users do not actually get a choice regarding the installation of such drivers, although they may be able to remove them subsequently without affecting the system's ability to boot up. I see further unanswered questions, e.g. are these components only installed if you have hardware that is supported by them, or by default for all users whether they need them or not? It would be good to find further reliable sources that actually describe the situation in detail in a way that is specific to Ubuntu. Samsara 08:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Of course the user gets a choice. If there are open source versions they're installed first. The user can select their hardware to avoid propitiatory drivers.
Second, a detailed explanation needs to be made in the article, about the length that you made here, and then it can be added if there are no further objections. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)