From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linux (Rated Start-class)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Unofficial project[edit]

I'm making the article avoid saying that Ubuntu Lite is an "unofficial project" again. If Ubuntu Lite is unofficial in some way, please mention in what perspective when readding the information.--Chealer 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and Edubuntu are all official sub projects of the Ubuntu Project, and so are sponsored by Canonical Ltd. (see Ubuntu (Linux distribution) and Ubuntu Lite is an independent project that uses Ubuntu as a base. It is therefore unofficial. The Ubuntu and Ubuntu Lite wiki pages already say this without needing explanation. There was a sentence on how Ubuntu Lite was unofficial because it was not sponsored by Canonical, but it was removed (by you).LadyPhi 15:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ubuntu designed for idiots[edit]

I removed the comment stating

The reason the Ubuntu project provides forks for every different Desktop Environment, even though you could easily do it yourself with apt-get and editing .xsession is because Ubuntu was desgned for idiots.

as it is POV and any criticism of ubuntu forking/seperating its desktop environment/versions should be targetted at the Ubuntu article. Xubuntu should not be criticised due to the decisions of its parent. -localzuk 21:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to mention vandalism reverts on the Talk page. However, I appreciate his humor, so having moved it here is appreciated :) --Chealer 02:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this was true back in 2005, but Debian does the same thing.
Funny comment, anyway.--Noerrorsfound (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


I have removed the comment stating 'or Debian' as Ubuntu, and then Xubuntu are derivatives of Debian Sid and are no longer part of the debian tree. They are a seperate distrobution and as such comments such as that are not needed.-localzuk 22:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved sections[edit]

I moved the 2 following sections here. "Desktop CD" reads like an advertisement. "Alternate install CD" goes IMO into too much details. This content seems more appropriate for Xubuntu's website.--Chealer 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Desktop CD[edit]

The Desktop CD is a combination of a Live CD and a normal install CD, it allows you to install Xubuntu normally or to run it without saving anything to your computer (Live CD). When using it as a Live CD, you can install it when started.

Alternate install CD[edit]

The Alternate install CD allows for more specialized installations, namely:

  • Creating pre-configured OEM systems
  • Setting up automated deployments
  • Upgrading from older installations without network access
  • LVM and/or RAID partitioning
  • Installing on systems with less than 128MB of RAM

Any Info on ShipIt?[edit]

This project seems relatively new, but I'm wondering if it's likely to be made available through ShipIt, like some of the other Ubuntu projects are. I'll keep a watch on the official site and see if any information is posted. Grendel 04:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this was the first official release, and is not available via ShipIt (neither is Kubuntu nor Edubuntu by the way).
Oh, okay. Maybe they'll provide it via ShipIt sometime later? By the way, Kubuntu is available through ShipIt. Although, only somewhat recently. I ordered a couple of CDs yesterday. I don't know about Edubuntu, though. Grendel 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
There is really no point, as you can have Ubuntu through shipit. After you have Ubuntu, just download Kubuntu, Xubuntu, or whatever it may be, through Synaptic. //Ae:æ 15:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
There really is a point. Most people would rather skip those extra steps and install xubuntu directly. --Snarius 18:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
All it takes is a couple of more steps. Plus, there is still not very much downloading.//Ae:æ 18:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Kubuntu and Edubuntu have only been made available by shipit since the release of 6.06. They both started later than Ubuntu, but before Xubuntu, so you would expect Xubuntu to become available from shipit later than these. Raoul Harris 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
My personal feeling is that there is more need for a Xubuntu Live CD than Kubuntu or Edubuntu - simply because Xubuntu is aimed at lower end machines which may not be able to adequately run the higher end OS packages. Regardless, I think the argument is moot because it's not really something to be covered here but on the Ubuntu forums. Kouros 12:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I ordered it off the Ubuntu web site but only recieved Ubuntu. They sent me 5 CD's, all the same. I prefer Xubuntu on my 533 MHz P3 IBM 300 PL 384 MB RAM, 19 GB Hard drive, CD/RW (4x), S3 Trio 64 Graphics, and Cirrus Logic Crystal Audio... as you can see that's fairly outdated yet works faster than Windows XP on my 1.8 GHz unit at work (many factors involved [network, start up apps, etc.])... I use Ubuntu on my 1GHz Athalon with 768 MB RAM on one hard drive (30 GB) and PC-BSD on the second (9GB)... Gnome runs fine on the more powerful machine. KDE running under PC-BSD runs great as well. User:Sargonious
Xubuntu is not sponsored by Canonical, only recognized as an "official" derivative. The user base is considered too small to be considered for ShipIt and thus that service will not be provided. --Vincent (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Similar Project[edit]

This paragraph has bad grammar, is rather unrelated and doesn't make much sense (in my opinion):

xUbuntu,an PC/Xbox enabled live distro made its way onto xbox linux a while back.While not being very fast on Xbox, it stays true to its ubuntu roots.There has also been some controversy over the xUbuntu choice of name as it conflicts with Xubuntu.The obvious thing that made xUbuntu famous was that typing in the terminal:

# the shareef dont like it

produces an ASCII video of rock the casbah.Humurous and rousing.

If anyone can provide more information, this part should be moved onto a separate page.

IPA pronunciation?[edit]

Can someone explain the supposedly-IPA pronunciation "/ˈzùbúntú/"? I can't find "ù" or "ú" in the IPA charts. I would've expected something more like /zuˈbəntu/ or /zuˈbuntu/, but in any case it doesn't seem to be IPA as written. —Eric S. Smith 21:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's perfectly valid IPA, indicating tone. 23:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC) - Gone?[edit]

What happened to It doesn't seem to be around anymore. Jorophose 01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

They're back, yay !~ 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"pronounced like su-boon-too"[edit]

Who says so? do you have a source for that claim? why it isn't as simple as x ubuntu? audio recording will suffice..remove that line till you get the official pronunciation..what about ubuntu it is said?--Alnokta 19:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Any idea on who's the project leader/founder? We could ask him or her. But that part of the article should be removed, unless there's an audio recording, and then it should be cited. Jorophose 23:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The project founder is Jani Monoses, see --Vincent (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there isn't any "official" pronunciation. There's a poll on the Ubuntu forums about this subject. — Insanity Incarnate 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion[edit]

I just wanted to inform anyone interested that the image used in this article is up for deletion in commons because there are tiny "non-free" logos in the screenshot. If someone wants to voice their opinion, just go to here. SF007 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Memory Requirements[edit]

The memory requirements listed in the article do not match those given by the Xubuntu website ([1]). The article currently claims more memory is needed than Xubuntu says. While as a user, I would tend to agree with the article's advice, the inconsistency is troubling. I'm not changing this automatically in case there is other (unlinkked) documentation that confirms the article. Vegipowrd (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced, you can check where the information came from, and it supports the current version. --Falcorian (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Does Xubuntu actually use significantly fewer resources? If Ubuntu and Xubuntu differ only in their desktop environment, does not that mean that 90% of the "programs/code/et al" used with either are the same? Does anyone have benchmark results we can put in a citation? This forum post also expresses my opinion well: (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
ask here. --wL<speak·check> 13:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The article says "Xubuntu's RAM usage actually is greater than Ubuntu with GNOME", but then it says "Once installed, Xubuntu can run with 192 MB RAM, but 256 MB RAM is strongly recommended.", while the Ubuntu article says the desktop (with GNOME) requires 512MB. ShinRa.Electic.Power.Company (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually removed that POV statement. The article they link too didn't prove anything. As to benchmarks, do like I did when I was shopping around for my primary flavor. I'm a minimalist, but require a modern interface. I used by VirtualBox and installed a variety of flavors from Ubuntu to FreeBSD to OpenSuse and installed the Xfce equivalents so for instance Ubuntu I would install Xubuntu. Anyway, to get to the point, when I ran my tests and compared their resource usage using both top and the resource app (which itself skews results especially for memory comparisons; meaning that top is the best measure) you will find about 100 MB difference in memory usage between Ubuntu and Xubuntu which comes from the terminal app. This is massively significant. Like some other people have said, about 90% (actually greater for memory) or so of the resource usage between the two will be the same as all you are doing is choosing a different desktop terminal. Everything else for the most part is the same. But like I said, I'm a minimalist and purist so I don't like to waste resources so for me 100MB is significant even though the percent change might be modest. For those of you who do not want to install a bunch of flavors to test, whichever one you do have simply install the different desktop terminals. At login you then choose which one to go with so you will cause no permanent damage to your system other than some hard drive space being taken up, but that is insignificant too. Go to terminal and then type in top and compare the results. This doesn't require any installation nor rebooting, only a minute or so of logging in and out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have restored the deleted text, please us an edit summary when you remove or add text. The reference article cited meets the requirements of WP:RS whereas what you have indicated here is WP:OR. If you want to change this then if you can cite a reference showing disagreement or controversy then that can be added, but there is no reason to remove the text and ref at this point. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Link to Linux Mint[edit]

The internal link to Linux Mint has be re-added at the bottom of the article.
I have the feeling some folks trying to promote "their" distribution in certain articles.
I am not saying this is the case here but still I do not see any relevance for that link.
There's also a Debian CD which installs Xfce by default. Many other Xfce-based distributions exist (sidux has one as well as Mandriva, Dreamlinux and VectorLinux are specifically designed to work with Xfce etc.).
Being ANOTHER Ubuntu-based distributions featuring Xfce, makes LinuxMint even less notable for the article.

The link could be replaced with: List of Ubuntu-based distributions —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I put it back in there, but I have no connection to Mint personally - don't use it myself, I use Ubuntu. It's connection to Xubuntu is that it is Ubuntu-based and runs Xfce. I agree that a list of Ubuntu-based distros that have Xfce is probably worthwhile adding, perhaps as a Nav box rather than a list? - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally there is a list of Xfce distros at Xfce#Prevalence, perhaps this would be a basis for a nav box? - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay - done - have a look!! - Ahunt (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Article header is negative about xubuntu[edit]

Highlighting it uses more RAM than standard ubuntu - omitting to say Xfce is much faster than gnome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

There is no evidence that it is faster than Gnome. If you have a ref that shows that then we can add it in. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
No idea whether it's xubuntu or xfce that makes the desktop faster than ubuntu and gnome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Wikipedia is based on verifiable references, so we need refs to change this since the cited ref shows otherwise. - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Article protected[edit]

I have protected the article from editing due to the content dispute, please note that the version protected may be the wrong version. Please explain why the text but at least for the beta of Xubuntu 9.10 this did not seem to be the case. Testing concluded that Xubuntu 9.10 beta's RAM usage was actually greater than Ubuntu's 9.10 beta with GNOME. should either be in the article or be removed and come to some consensus. Please also note WP:CIVIL and discuss the content not other editors or their actions. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much evidence of a dispute here, just a single disruptive editor. Greenman (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but I am looking to establish a consensus in the section below as well. Once we have that the article can be unprotected. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Unprotected. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you guys serious. For those of you who are reading this for the first time, the dispute has come about because Ahunt and I had strong words that were deleted. Ahunt consequentially recruited his friend Greenman to bully me. They in turn attempted to recruit someone higher up the food chain, MilborneOne, to silence me. The only reason why they are fighting hard is because I insulted them heavily as can be seen in the history page. I do not apologize for this. I like to show people for who they are. Knowledge, especially under the encyclopedic perspective, is supposed to be objective. I purposely insulted Ahunt to see how "objective" he was. No matter how much I insult you 2+2 = 4. The test is to see your behavior when personally assaulted. Ahunt failed, in my opinion. He and his friend continue their SUBJECTIVE assault against me and objective knowledge. This is essentially the whole story.
More on the objective issue. The dispute regards their statement that a beta was shown to use more resources than a finalized product. As anyone who uses Linux and has an understanding thereof would know, Xcfe uses far fewer resource than Gnome which is the maximum expression of eye candy a typical Linux desktop can show. They used an article that is inaccessible to unregistered users authored by an individual who did not produce a scientific study of any kind to show that a BETA, a BETA performed more poorly than intended. This is inappropriate for the header whose original purpose was to simple state, simply state that Xubuntu which is the Xcfe version of Ubuntu uses fewer resources than Ubuntu (which it ought since the only fundamental difference is Xfce vs. Gnome). Therefore, the burden of proof is on the editor that ADDED this. In addition, the comparision should be made regarding the FINALIZED product as a beta is just that- a BETA.
The only reason why they CHOOSE not to accept the revert back to the original state is because of their personal dislike of me. All evidence points to the revert. (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea who you are, but your edit warring, threats, insults, personal attacks, lack of civil behaviour and now paranoid ramblings about conspiracies are not helping make any sort of case here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for restoration of deleted content[edit]

User: has been edit warring to remove this text from the article:

The Xfce desktop environment is intended to use fewer system resources than the default GNOME, but at least for the beta of Xubuntu 9.10 this did not seem to be the case. Testing concluded that Xubuntu 9.10 beta's RAM usage was actually greater than Ubuntu's 9.10 beta with GNOME.<ref>{{cite web|url =|title = Lubuntu: Floats Like a Butterfly, Stings Like a Bee|accessdate = 2009-10-19|publisher = Linux Magazine|date = 9 September 2009}}</ref>

So far they have presented no reliable ref to show that the information is incorrect. The article is currently protected with the text removed and therefore I propose that the deleted text and ref be restored. - Ahunt (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No argument with this proposal, there has been no constructive dispute. Greenman (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
With no sign of opposition to Ahunt's proposal to restore the test I have released the protection. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I was going to request semi-protection, but since it is now open, let's see how it goes. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you guys serious? A significant portion of the discussion on this page is about that nonsense paragraph. In addition, no real evidence has been brought forth that current non-beta Xubuntu is as claimed regarding the beta. In addition, like before, if you guys understood computers to make a claim that Xfce uses more resources than Gnome is almost preposterous. Finally, it was not I that was "warring." Once again I have been accused of improper behavior. Therefore, I will have to start escalating this. (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, after re-reading everything in preparation for a war with you guys, I noticed that the decision to "unlock" the page in Ahunt's favor after being seconded by Greenman who Ahunt sent in to bully me with comments to my personal page took a little under 3 hrs. Yeah, this is objective. Now you guys really pissed me off. If you only knew...your move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This issue was consulted to find consensus for four days. That you decided not to participate in consensus building and would rather issue yet more threats is your decision. The only way to get this article changed at this point is to build a new consensus. Carrying on an edit war against consensus is mere vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally a quick search turns up hundreds of articles on Xubuntu's unexpectedly high RAM useage. I have cited just three of these and also, because the section was getting a bit long for the lead para, I have moved it down to the "Goals" section. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It can be noted that User:Greenman has taken this to ANI. - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
As a further note User: was blocked for 31 hours for "disruptive editing" by User:Tnxman307. That admin also noted "Further issues can probably be solved with semi-protection". - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Speaking as a simple user who wants to install some variety of Ubuntu on a netbook with limited amount of memory (0.5GB), I'm confused by the above arguments. The Xubuntu site requires 192MB of RAM and 2GB of disk space, whereas the Ubuntu site suggests 1GB of RAM and 15GB of disk for the desktop version (though it hides that requirement pretty well) and recommends 512MB for Netbook Ubuntu (4GB disk) and 256MB (2GB) for Xubuntu. The Linux magazine article's unfavourable comparison of Xubuntu claims that it uses 311MB RAM using a mix of 12 applications compared with 290MB for Ubuntu, but possibly much of that comes from one app: the terminal shell. (My current Ubuntu system is using twice that.) It's also dated, as it refers to some version of 9.10 whereas the above seems to apply to 10.10 - additionally the current netbook version of Ubuntu appears to implement the Unity desktop which might be even more hungry and maybe Canonical is preparing the way.
Are the above references quotable in the article or do we need third party sources? Chris55 (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, a bit more googling produces a survey from an IBM Software Engineer who should know what he's doing, tho it's dated 2007. He compares Ubuntu and Xubuntu on 256 and 128MB machines. He measures a base of 231 on Ubuntu and 170 for Xubuntu on the 256 machine (I'm just truncating the KB figures). Significantly, on the 128 machine the Ubuntu already has 18 swap whereas X has none. With a "light" loading, the swap on the 128 machine is slowing U down significantly, but not X (96 cf 64). That seems to me a sensible test with those memory levels and produces an opposite conclusion to the Smart article, which doesn't even record the machine memory and is actually promoting Lubuntu. Chris55 (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that article, I have incorporated it into the text. The later criticisms are about a later version, but this does add some background. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I found and added another review, this time of Xubuntu 9.04, to fill in the timeline gaps. - Ahunt (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Why I removed quotations[edit]

Sorry to beat what some may see as a dead horse but I found the presentation of information in the Goals section to be unsatisfactory. In particular the final paragraph had three quotes all taken from reviews of Lubuntu that seem to be cherry-picked for their strongly negative wording.

The first quote makes it appear that the Doru Barbu is the one asserting that Xubuntu fails to be lightweight, even though, when one looks at the full sentence ("The developers claim that, while Xubuntu is often represented as a lightweight distro, it actually fails to run on older hardware, so they are targeting their Linux distribution at older legacy computers and devices with less than 256 MB of RAM."), Barbu is actually reporting that the Lubuntu developers are the ones asserting this claim.

The second quote refers to recent benchmarks and drops the link from the words "sometimes even more so!" When one follows the link, it is in fact the very same testing done by Linux Magazine already mentioned in the prior paragraph. To include this quote is almost like using the same information twice but presenting it as if it were two opinions that were derived independently from each other.

So what I've done is remove the first two quotes but left the citations, while changing the paragraph's lead sentence and keeping the third quote as an example of what reviewers of Lubuntu have been saying. I believe this more honestly presents the issue of Xubuntu's deficiencies.Whitejay251 07:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your changes look fine, it still conveys the points the reviewers made. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Broken link in the article[edit] הוי ארצי (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup you are right. I Dead link tagged it, as I could not find it on - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


I reverted this edit for a number of reasons, but I wanted to give an explanation on the talk page. It appears to be promotional in nature, and is lacking in any third-party sources giving it any weight, and as the primary source is a blog, it isn't even a reliable source in its own right. - SudoGhost 17:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this needs a proper ref to be added. - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


Added Lubuntu to see also since it has the same goal to be a light distro of Ubuntu, No idea why crunchbang is there as it is no longer based on Ubuntu. Derpian (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Lubuntu is linked in the text of the article, but it is high up, so okay to put in in the "see alsos as well. You can remove CrunchBang if you like, - Ahunt (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Done, I'll keep Spri there since it's was the same goal as Ubuntu, a lightweight desktop with Ubuntu. Crunchbang used to be this but no longer. Derpian (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Excessive quoting[edit]

I think there is way too much quoting of sources in the article. --Mortense (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying there are too many references or too many quotations? - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)