Talk:Ubuntu

"(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)

"A monolithic kernel is an operating system architecture where the entire operating system is working in the kernel space and alone as supervisor mode. The monolithic differs from other operating system architectures (such as the microkernel architecture)[1][2] in that it defines alone a high-level virtual interface over computer hardware, with a set of primitives or system calls to implement all operating system services such as process management, concurrency, and memory management itself and one or more device drivers as modules."

Linux DOES Support modules (as well). Hence, hybrid. 94.168.168.153 (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Operating system?

This seems so obviously misnamed that I am very surprised. It is a distribution, or distro... Linux could be the OS, but it is the kernel, and GNU could be the OS, but it is the shell, or interface layer. So I guess Stallman is right: GNU/Linux. But not Ubuntu. --John Bessa (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Ubuntu itself is an operating system. Linux is the kernel that it uses, and it's GUI desktop environment comes in several flavors. Lucasoutloud (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what a Linux distribution is. A Linux distribution is a member of the family of Unix-like operating systems built on top of the Linux kernel. Such distributions (often called distros for short) are Operating systems including a large collection of software applications such as word processors, spreadsheets, media players, and database applications. The operating system will consist of the Linux kernel and, usually, a set of libraries and utilities from the GNU project, with graphics support from the X Window System. As you can see, an operating system is much more than the kernel itself. Elizium23 (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I must agree with John here. This is misleading. An operating system is not a GUI. Ubuntu should be labled as a GUI or as a Linux distro. Linux is the operating system and the distros are the various types of GUIs. The kernel is the operating system the GUI is just what helps you navigate through data efficiently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.192.230 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You also seem to misunderstand the definitions you are using. Please read above and follow the link for "Linux distribution". The GUI used for Ubuntu is GNOME, KDE, or Unity. The GUI and its purpose is part of, and must not be confused with, the whole operating system itself. If you knew the internal details of different distributions then you would not confuse them with a GUI. For instance, Ubuntu uses the APT packaging system, while other distributions use YUM. This is not part of the GUI, yet it is a distinctive feature that distinguishes one operating system from another. Elizium23 (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "operating system" is an appropriate term. That Ubuntu can accurately be described as a GNU/Linux distro does not preclude the usage of other terms. Compare with the way that Windows XP and Mac OS X are called "operating systems", there is no important difference. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I support this notion, that "operation system" is completely misleading. It's clearly a distribution and even BASED on another distribution. Calling it an operating system is simply false, even by the definition of an operating system from Wikipedia itself. No one would ever say "Ubuntu manages computer hardware resources" The kernel does that. eNTi (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that Ubuntu includes the kernel, a linux kernel which is compiled in a way unique to Ubuntu. This unique kernel that comes with every version of Ubuntu is even called the "Ubuntu kernel" and you might hear folks speak of compiling the kernel "the Ubuntu way". There is not a moat filled with alligators separating the kernel and the rest of Ubuntu. Ubuntu comes with the same sets of tools (low-level hardware management, display server, file manager, text editor, gui for settings, etc) that every other package of software labeled as an "operating system". So labeling Ubuntu as an operating system is not "simply false". Content disputes like this should be settled based on what reliable sources say:

• Ubuntu homepage: "Ubuntu is a fast, secure and easy-to-use operating system used by millions of people around the world."
• ZDNet: "As a huge fan of Linux for more than a decade, I've witnessed a lot of drama in the community surrounding the operating system, with much of the polemic focused on the desktop."
• Linux Insider: "...projects are afoot to port flourishing operating systems like Android and Ubuntu to TouchPads."
• Bloomberg via BussinessWeek: "...and the Ubuntu Linux operating system to spur adoption of its cloud-computing software,..."
• New York Times: "People encountering Ubuntu for the first time will find it very similar to Windows. The operating system has a slick graphical interface, familiar menus and all the common desktop software..."
• Wired: "If you’re curious to try out the newest version of the popular Linux-based operating system, you might want to try installing and running it in a virtual environment such as VirtualBox."
• Wall Street Journal: "Another option is to use an obscure computer operating system such as Ubuntu or Web browser such as Opera because attackers rarely create malware for them, security experts say"

There's nothing wrong with calling Ubuntu an operating system. That one can use the word "distribution" does not change this. And labeling Ubuntu as a "GUI" is completely inaccurate. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 22:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's true that calling Ubuntu a GUI is completely wrong, but I don't thing anyone is arguing for that. While it's not entirely wrong to refer to it as an "Operating System" it's more accurate to call it a distribution. --Keithonearth (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's accurate to call Windows a 'software release' too but it is commonly called an operating system. Elizium23 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Operating system is a term that works in a a variety of contexts and will be understood by most readers without explanation. "distribution" is too context-specific, will not be familiar to most readers, and does not add any important level of meaning. "Operating system" is common, and accurate, and it's used in a variety of reliable sources, including Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical, furthermore there is no compelling reason not to use the term. to be sure there are plenty of sources that use the words "Linux distribution" when talking about Ubuntu but there is no advantage to using that term, but there's a big downside. We want people who are not experts on the topic to be able to read and understand the article. see WP:TECHNICAL - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

it was recently claimed in the edit summery that we have consensus to use the term OS for Ubuntu. This is clearly not true, as the extended discussion on this issue makes clear. We may not have consensus to change it to "distro", but please don't hide behind false consensus claims. Some of the above reasons for sticking with OS are good, eg the point Metal lunchbox makes above -- well, if you overlook the claim that primary sources are good ones. Other's are not worth mentioning. I would still prefer to see the term "Distribution" used, as it seems better to be accurate than widely understood. And isn't that what this comes down to? Oh, but there is this --Keithonearth (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no false claim. I think you need to learn what WP:CONSENSUS is before calling, or at least suggesting, that I'm a liar. I don't care one way or the other, but consensus has been reached and we need to change it, not just change the content. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I sure didn't mean to imply you were lying, and I don't want to edit war (I've not changed the article myself, ever). However I'm surprised to hear this seems like consensus to you, and disappointed to see that you feel that there is enough agreement to call it that. I hope you change your mind and don't revert edits with the statement that there is consensus. Saying that "OS" is the most agreed on term, or has more advantages than "distro" seems like a more realistic statement on why it's whats presently used. Even though I would prefer to see "distro" used I can see the argument made for these reasons. Saying that this level of disagreement is low enough to qualify as consensus doesn't seem helpful or meaningful. --Keithonearth (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS means more than you think it does. Spend some time reading it an you should see the point, but in short, discussion is only one way of reaching consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Supporting fifty percent

Ubuntu holds an estimated global usage of more than 12 million desktop users, making it the most popular desktop Linux distribution with about 50% of Linux desktop marketshare

While this is probably about right, it's increasingly hard to substantiate. Most comparisons rely on user agents, and Firefox recently disabled theirs. Now Stat Owl and Wikimedia squid logs are reporting somewhere between 60%-80% of non-Android clients have Unknown Linux user agents. Comparisons of distro usage based on this metric are becoming irrelevant fast.

Is there any other way we can quantify Ubuntu usage with resorting to DistroWatch? Exeva (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing i386 and amd64 to x86 and x86-64

Some time ago, I changed the name i386 and amd64 to x86 and x86-64. I felt that it would be more consistant as there are several wikipedia articles using these terms. However recently, the changed has been undone by Jasper Deng and the following is the rationale behind his actions.

I quote from my talk page:

x86 and x86-64 are names Microsoft uses. However, the real names are i386 and amd64, respectively. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

To which I replied: Several Wikipedia articles use x86 and x86-64, so it would be more consistent by using these terms across the board. Also going with your argument of nomenclatures being coined by companies, i386 is used by Intel and amd64 is used by AMD. Microsoft uses x64 and not x86-64. Quote from the x86-64 page: "x86-64 is still used by many in the industry as a vendor-neutral term, while others, notably Sun Microsystems[4] (now Oracle Corporation) and Microsoft,[5] use x64." Amuletxheart (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

And he countered with: Actually, i386 and amd64 are the preferred terms here. We could use x86-64, but we prefer not to. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more consistant and neutral to use the terms "x86 and x86-64" instead?

This is a little bit like "flavor" vs. "flavour". The difference isn't random and Wikipedia doesn't insist on consistency. Generally we use whatever is the convention most closely related to the subject of the article and use that consistently within that article. When discussing Ubuntu, reliable sources consistently use i386 and amd64. This is also conventional for most linux-related topics. For this reason its best to stick with i386 and amd64 in this article. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 07:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you remove the P6 core ref it is confusing making people think it only works with the intel pentum pro and won't work with AMD products — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.249.3 (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Lubuntu Removed?

I know that Lubuntu was recently removed from the article because it isn't officially recognized by Canonical. However, this page isn't about Canonical, even if Ubuntu is officially supported by them, and we shouldn't remove mention about a legitimate variant just because Canonical doesn't like it yet. There is another instance of this sort of reference on the article Debian that shows its many forks, like Backtrack, which is not officially recognized by Debian's backers as far as I know. Does anyone agree that Lubuntu should return to the page? Lucasoutloud (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I just realized that section was only for Canonical supported releases, and there is a completely different article for Ubuntu variants. Sorry about that. Lucasoutloud (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)