Talk:Ubuntu

Ubuntu and security

The article should say a little more on Ubuntu/Linux/Unix and security ..

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=510812 Viralmeme (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be more of a general linux/unix subject or an article comparing them with other OSs- MS, Apple, etc. A small bit with a link to such an article may be appropriate. IMHO (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It might also be an attempt to compare it with OpenBSD whose main goal is to make a secure UNIX. In comparison with that, all other UNIX flavours are not secure. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by attempt, but as far as an across the board comparison, I could see that in more general terms- Ubuntu's comparison amongst Linux/Unix-like systems in a number of categories- security, ease of use, utility, etc. A focus on just security though seems a little much for this article, unless there's some issue or coverage that would justify giving weight to it. IMHO (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A focus not just on security, but it does need mentioning. As in Linux don't ship with an AntiVirus package as it isn't needed. Viralmeme (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"(Monolithic-based Hybrid)"

What about the kernels used by Ubuntu is hybrid? Linux kernel#Architecture says it's just monolithic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darxus (talk • contribs)

Ubuntu category

I resurrected Category:Ubuntu (operating system) and populated it with articles I could easily identify. Please feel free to populated it further! --Pnm (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation and Ubuntu

In my opinion it would be worth mentioning that Wikimedia Foundation's servers use Ubuntu. Veikk0.ma (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Copy-paste from Ubuntu documentation

This edit was a copy-paste from two different places in the Ubuntu documentation. Luckily, we are permitted to use this text under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Unfortunately, the editor did not provide attribution which is a requirement (the "BY" part of "CC-BY-SA".) I am not sure how to provide attribution in this case, but it must either be provided or the edit be reverted for plagiarism. Links to the Ubuntu site are in the <ref> tags on each paragraph. Elizium23 (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's cc-by-sa? I wasn't able to find that on the site, but I did find '© 2010 Canonical Ltd. Ubuntu and Canonical are registered trademarks of Canonical Ltd.', (I saw the talk page after I reverted it as a copy-paste because of the © at the bottom). Because I wasn't able to find reference of cc-by-sa I'm hesitant to revert my revserion, but it is in fact cc-by-sa feel free to revert me. However, even if it isn't copyvio, as worded it feels a little too like a WP:WTA and too much like an advert.- SudoGhost (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

One chunk might be. Ubuntu Server Guide says at its head, Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006 Canonical Ltd. and members of the Ubuntu Documentation Project but at its foot, The material in this document is available under a free license, see Legal for details and 'Legal' is a link to Credits and License, which says, Unless stated otherwise on the front page of the document, the documents are made available under the Creative Commons ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC-BY-SA). I don't know if the copyright statement overrides the CC license. CC is still a copyright.

The other two chunks were apparently not CC-BY-SA: Server Overview and Cloud Overview both appear to be © Copyright Canonical, Inc. And at any rate, I agree that they sound too much like an advert. Elizium23 (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the content I reverted was from the 'Cloud Overview' section, but I just wanted to err on the side of caution in regards to the possible copyvio. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The information inserted was reverted because it was written like an advert, and because of a possible copyright violation. Please use this page to discuss reasons for reinserting it before adding it back to the page. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Wubi

Noticed a reverted (by Walter Görlitz with comment "What?") edit [1] about Wubi; the removed text was: "Hibernation/suspend is not supported, and it is more vulnerable to hardreboots." This is actually supported by the ref [2] "Hibernation is not supported under Wubi, moreover Wubi filesystem is more vulnerable to hard-reboots (turning off the power) and power outages than a normal filesystem, so try to avoid unplugging the power. An Ubuntu installation to a dedicated partition provides a filesystem that is more robust and can better tolerate such events." Dunno if that level of detail is necessary for the main Ubuntu article vs the Wubi one though. -- Limulus (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Since UNE will no longer be a separate version of Ubuntu, I would propose to merge UNE into Ubuntu as a compact sub-article. 71.90.29.110 (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - as long as it remains a separate section in the Ubuntu (operating system) article for historical purposes. - Ahunt (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with Ahunt about keeping it in a separate section. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - See Ahunt's support reason in 1st post. - 76.113.131.48 (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The Ubuntu article is big enough as it is (55,428 bytes as of the last edit). WP:SIZE states that an article should be kept UNDER 30k-50k bytes. We should be branching things off of the article, not merging them in. 99.255.58.85 (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)