Wikipedia

Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 14

< Talk:Ubuntu
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Aaron Liu in topic Licensing Obfuscation
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Requested move 8 September 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (page mover nac) The editor whose username is Z0 17:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

– This page gets by far the most page views, with a daily average of 2,643 compared to the daily average of only 392 for the disambiguation page and 774 for the philosophy. Additionally, the philosophy page is already distinguished with the WP:NATURAL name of Ubuntu philosophy. The operating system is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as it is more likely than the other topics combined to be searched for. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Open source or open-source

Latest comment: 5 years ago20 comments10 people in discussion

Odd that the anon from Indiana is electing to change the word linked to open-source software to "open source" rather than the original "open-source" and entirely ignore the instance in the lede, the "official distributions" table, the three in the "large-scale deployments" section, the one in the "critical reception" section, and mention in the link to portal:Free and open-source software. Is there any reason to keep it only in the infobox? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"Open source" is correct. Wikipedia seems to be consistent in its use of "open-source", but this is wrong. Strangely, I can't find any discussion other than this one so I don't know how this came about. Note that http://www.ubuntu.com describes Ubuntu as "an open source software operating system," and in this article "open source" appears three times in the titles of citations and "open-source" doesn't appear at all. Dan Bloch (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the infobox should just link to to open-source software without any pipes. It would solve this issue and avoid any confusion for readers as to where the link is pointing to. - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Software development sites are not a good source for correct rules of the language with their incorrect use of capitals, etc. This is the case of a hyphenated adjective (see English compound#Hyphenated compound modifiers) and "open-source" is correct. There was a brief post-move discussion (Talk:Open-source software/Archive 1#Move) that discusses correct usage versus common usage as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Görlitz here seems to have a questionable understanding of history. As of his own edit one year ago, it was correctly spelled as "open source". Either his (strongly held, weakly supported) opinions have changed since then, or a mistake was made. 2600:1015:B025:B3F0:8C3:D9EF:BDB7:818C (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
The facts remain: "open source" is the wrong way to write the word. As I suggested, get the article moved if you think you're right. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, is it acceptable to use both Open Source and/or open-source since the meaning is technically the same idea/concept? I don't see the fuzz if both were used on an article if it means the same thing but without the "-" symbol in use. ImpWarfare (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Look, there's nothing wrong with the article open-source software. Görlitz, did you even read the discussion you linked to? It says "open-source" is an adjective and "open source" is a noun, as I clearly stated when undoing your mistake. What you are suggesting is that all the infobox parameters be changed from nouns to adjectives. Perhaps the license should be changed to "free-software"? In Deutschland sagen sie vielleicht Open-Source, aber dies ist die englische Wikipedia. Ich schlage vor, Sie lernen unsere Sprache. 2600:1015:B017:FA9A:7854:DB6:AFD2:62B3 (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
There is something wrong with being inconsistent. We should only use "open-source" or "open source". I did read the discussion we are describing an "open-source source model, so it's an adjective, not a noun. And not everyone with a German name is German. Check out my user page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Perhaps the real issue is that the English language is inconsistent. Unfortunately, nothing can be done about that on Wikipedia. 2600:1015:B06D:3B1D:B12B:17E2:581F:CA1F (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I assume that's another comment directed at me. How about we focus on content, not on the contributor?
I have shown how it's an adjective, nothing can be done about that. I recognize that "open source" can be used as a noun, but this is not one of those cases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by English compound#Hyphenated compound modifiers. Grammar rules notwithstanding, correctness is determined by usage, and "open source" is far more widely used than "open-source"(ref: Google search for "open source software"). It isn't Wikipedia's job to be prescriptive. On the other hand, what a pain to change them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbloch (talk • contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Usage is not always correct. For instance, most grocery stores use the incorrect "x items or less" over their checkout lanes (when it should be "x items or fewer"). As an encyclopedia, we should strive to be correct not imitate usage that we know to be incorrect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
That is an unrelated issue. From the previously cited article: "If, however, there is no risk of ambiguities, it may be written without a hyphen." Simplicity and clarity should be the guiding principles here. The open source community -- that is, programmers who contribute to open source -- do not use the hyphen to describe their own work (see GitHub). That norm should be respected. 2600:1015:B004:C94C:5043:E17:5D47:2895 (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. Have the article moved. What programmers do and don't do is not important as I explained above as they use their own rules of grammar. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
"What programmers do and don't do is not important"...OK. Maybe you should stop using our software. 2600:1015:B06F:B2EF:8117:219F:396D:333 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I suspect I was involved in creating it before you were born so maybe you should stop using our software. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

RE: The "see also" section

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What would go in this section? Links to similar or derived distributions are already mostly linked in the body. Should it be removed entirely? I don't see the point of an empty section. Mount2010 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:SEEALSO is the guide. It currently reads, "whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." Personally a link to other distributions doesn't make sense here, but a link to list of Linux distributions would.
Definitely, anything already linked in the article should not be listed there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not empty, it has "boxed" links to the Free and open-source software portal, the Computer science portal and the Information technology portal. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

LTS dates update

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just wanted to expand a bit on LTS dates as I'm about to change the date for 18.04. This page at the moment lists the LTS date of 18.04 as 2028, but this isn't quite accurate as the LTS date is 2023 and the ESM date is 2028, as referenced on this page [1]. At the moment, for other LTS releases, the date used on this wiki page is the LTS date, not the ESM date. So either 18.04's date needs to be changed to reflect the LTS date rather than ESM, or the other releases needed to be changed to use the ESM date. So far as I'm aware, this page has always reflected the LTS dates so that's the date I'm going with. That's the rationale for the change. This is documented and referenced in detail on the main page Ubuntu_version_history, which lists the LTS and ESM dates separately and explains the nuance in its main section. FangXianfu (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. It is worth explaining. - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

MAAS (07/2019)

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Seems like some reference to MAAS bare-metal in missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech201805 (talk • contribs)

You will need to provide more context to this request, as I am not sure what you are referring to. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Presumably he's referring to Metal As A Service, to spell out the initialism. Guy Harris (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"Consensus" on the use of parameters in the Infobox OS template

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

An edit that changed it to reflect what the Template:Infobox OS documentation suggests for the setting of "family" and "kernel" was reverted with an edit summary of just "not consensus".

What consensus is there? Is there some consensus, either for this page in particular or for pages in general, that differs from what's in the documentation for Template:Infobox OS? If so, that consensus should be reflected in that documentation. Guy Harris (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There have been multiple discussions about this in the past:
If there's a change, it should be discussed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
So presumably that's a discussion about Linux distributions in general, not specifically about Ubuntu.
If so, the the Template:Infobox OS documentation should be updated to say that Linux distributions should be in the "Linux" family. Guy Harris (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Why does that even matter? WP:CONSENSUS does not need to be across the project. If there isn't one for other articles or the template, start the discussion, but the consensus here is clear. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
And the discussions above are only those for not moving to "unix-like" there are others about other variants. "Linux" is the consensus here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion opened on the template's talk page. (Having different consensuses for different distributions would make no sense whatsoever.) Guy Harris (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Phonetic pronunciation wrong?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Both the IPA and the English transliteration of the IPA say "uhbuhntoo" (Ubuntu (/ʊˈbʊntuː/ (About this soundlisten) uu-BUUN-too)[6] ). But when I play the audio file, it says ubuntu (that's the IPA long oo), and the cited reference also shows the long oo.

Is there a reason for this inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.125.186 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The IPA and respelling are consistent with the source, which is emulating the traditional notation of American dictionaries "o͝o" (/ʊ/) and "o͞o" (/uː/) by "oǒ" and "oō", respectively. More confusingly, the placement of the stress mark (apostrophe) follows the practice of the IPA rather than that of the American notation, as in videos like this it is clear it is the second syllable that is stressed.
The audio also sounds consistent to my ears, and if anything sounds off to any extent it is the pronunciation of /t/, which sounds palatalized for some reason (either that or the speaker has a diphthongal/fronted /uː/), not the vowels. Nardog (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No mention of ShipIt

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ubuntu had a popular program in the 2000s in which they would send free CDs (sometimes whole boxes of them) by postal mail, free of charge, to anyone who requested them. Source: https://ubuntu.com/blog/shipit-comes-to-an-end There is no mention of this in the article. Should there be? Where? Maybe an interested party can add this. Shawnmb (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

At the time it was pretty minor and it disappeared early on, as too expensive. Not sure it is any more than WP:TRIVIA. - Ahunt (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverted [2]

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Since Ubuntu 20.04, settings allow user to enable or disable Location services (which use Mozilla Location Service). However, Mozilla Firefox (pre-installed as default browser) still uses by default Google Location Services and is able to provide location informations even if Location services in Ubuntu settings are disabled.

Is it ok, now? Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed it due to WP:NOTMANUAL which explains that Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual. The ref you cited was a Mozilla help page that does not even mention Ubuntu. If this belongs anywhere it would be on Firefox not here. - Ahunt (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok I'll admit ref was quite circumstantial. The whole problem is that I think a "issues" paragraph should be fairly created. I like Ubuntu and hope it'll get better and better, but this article lends it as it was an "Eden" in the OSs world, with no bugs, issues, and such stuff. Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
We do not create separate sections for issues or controversies. We discuss them in-line with other topics unless they become a distraction. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Security

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The statement "low privileges" sounds vague because it can be assumed just for read and write access to file system. However programs are installed as sudo and can get privileges higher than standard user. Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You're missing the context. The place where that appears reads "User programs run with low privileges". While they are installed using sudo (or even root) they themselves do not have root access, even if they set-up their own user privileges to run under. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, sudo is not the context, but low privileges is an opinion. It maybe can be compared with windows, as far as we consider filesystem read and write privileges. But, what about firewalls, sandboxes and such things? I think: it should be, minimum, explicated what type of privileges. Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Opinion? No, it is supported by the reference.
I'm starting to have problems with everything you're writing and doing here.
You make links in headings which goes against MOS:HEADING and the link didn't show anything.
You link directly to topics instead of breaking backlinks.
Now you're offering opinion claiming that sourced content is opinion.
Finally, you mean to write Windows, rather than windows.
Find a reliable source to support your opinion and add a summary of the source's content otherwise, stop pushing your opinions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
here we go, experienced user starts appealing at uppercases and formatting in a talk page, then treats article as it was his own property page. I'm here to learn but don't think wiki will expand this way. Stop edits today for me. Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The more I thought about what you wrote, the more disturbing it became. The section is about applications. If you're running your firewall as an application, you're doing something wrong. Yes, I expect them to operate at a level lower than I do GEdit or LibreOffice, but then again, I don't expect those applications to prevent malicious behaviour on my system. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry you think I'm showing WP:OWNership of the article. If you're here to learn, please do, but don't be an uninformed expert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Latest release in infobox.

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to add the latest LTS release of Ubuntu which is 20.04.2.0[1] in the infobox alongside the latest 21.04 release. However, I had a hard time trying to implement it in the infobox. If anyone can help me with this, that would be great. Interstellarity (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. The infobox template Template:Infobox OS does not allow for multiple current versions, only one, so we just list the most recent, in this case 21.04. To be honest the infobox is cluttered enough as it is, so rather that make it even more cluttered, this information goes in the article text instead. We also just deal with general releases, like 20.04 LTS and don't get into the minutia of point releases or sub point releases as per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Download Ubuntu Desktop | Download". Ubuntu.

Discussion about DistroTest

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

There is a discussion at the External links Noticeboard regarding this edit, and reversion. It is about whether we should be using distrotest.net on Linux articles or not. Huggums537 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, I disagree with the reversion, but I haven't reverted it back because of the ongoing discussion, and I want to avoid edit wars by following WP:BRD. Huggums537 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Why are you responding to your own comment? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I intended for that to be an addendum comment to my first comment, not a reply to my own comment. I will put the comment, and formatting back in accordance with its intended purpose. Please do not modify other peoples comments in a way that changes the intended meaning or purpose of their comments. This is against talk page guidelines: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Huggums537 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, what you did here is the editing equivalent of grabbing my arm, and slapping me with my own hand while asking me, "why are you hitting yourself?" I'm sure you have a good chuckle at my expense, but I find it to be unamusing. Let's try to be respectful of each other. Huggums537 (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:INDENTGAP Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, now you are just being tendentious since I already explained to you what the intentions of my comment are, and I asked you civilly not to move it. I would take you to Ani over this if I didn't think it was a bunch of tomfoolery, or just trying to push my buttons. Plus, I have a lot more pleasant things to do. I'm not going to edit war over this ridiculousness either, so I hope you're happy with yourself that you get your way. Huggums537 (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
No, I am being precise and correct. I hope you are learning how to edit correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz it has been more than ten days since anyone has made any meaningful contributions to the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:External links/Noticeboard#use of distrotest.net in EL. Can we agree there is a consensus for the link and put it back in? Huggums537 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Huggums537: Agreed. I'll restore it now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I know a discussion about distrotest.net already exists, but that isn't about the website not existing anymore, which is why I created a new discussion.

What should we do about the distrotest.net link below "External links", the site doesn't exist anymore, should we remove the line "Ubuntu on DistroTest, a free online emulator for operating systems."? 2A00:23C4:3680:3100:7077:9ACA:D0F1:54EE (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Done - Thanks for noticing that dead external link. The domain seems to have been sold and now just has articles like 10 Of The Best Threading Hair Removal : Rumors & Highlights. Unlike some external links that can be fixed with archive.org or similar services, this one cannot, as archives won't offer the functionality, so I have just removed it from this article and all others on Wikipedia, as well. - Ahunt (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago46 comments15 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 16:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

– To facilitate the movement of Ubuntu philosophy as this software name is just borrowing the Xhosa word; thus, it doesn’t make sense for a derivative from or a use of the word Ubuntu to lead to this article, when there is an article about the philosophy/thing itself. Again: the software is named/inspired by the philosophy; thus, the philosophy should take precedence not the software. Hence why the move request to move the philosophy to this page/name. The software name might be known in small circles but the wide use of the word is about the philosophy. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Support Comment: stop this culture appropriation and whit washing of African culture. The brand was named after the philosophy. So it’s culture appropriate and white washing to put this version before the original, i.e., the philosophy FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Okay three points here: first you already nominated this move, so you don't get to iVote twice, two, the operating system was invented and named by a person from South Africa so it is not "culture appropriation" and three, it seems that you are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, so please read that and withdraw this move request. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
do you think the guy from South Africa pulled the name from his behind?
I don’t think the policy you cited is that ignorant. It require a special kind of person to equate correcting something that is wrong with being “wrong”. If you have been toying with African culture all of this time, it’s time to wake up and small the coffee. It’s not wrong to point out how fucked this is.
and please don’t drag the guy who created the brand because you just assume he wants his brand to be the face of philosophy or something. What a very convoluted argument ! FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming that your motivation here is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, regardless of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Plus please cut out the insults and read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Where did I insult you?! FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Are we reading the same reply?
if you feel insulted, I’m sorry for that
just know nothing is personal here and this will be eventually decided by concusses. is not for me to move things, sadly when it’s as hurtful as this. But understand some people just don’t get it
common sense is not common
take care and I will stop replying to you as not make it worse
again sorry if you felt personally attacked. Was not my intention FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Oppose. I'll tell you who cares if name derived from something is known more than original thing, Wikipedia does. Read the guidelines over at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We're not here to WP:RGW. The word Ubuntu is most recognizable as the name of the Linux distro, and this request doesn't even dispute that. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
    @Festucalex don’t twist my words. The argument was see WP:GOOGLEHITS for why we don't care about Google hits. - Ahunt (talk) so argue with them. Not sure how can two people can oppose the same thing using opposing arguments. This is a 5d chess FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Please stop jumping all over each response here. Read WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:BLUDGEON which says In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: If you pause for a moment to take a deep breath, you'll find that Ahunt was talking about Google Hits specifically. Obviously, we do care about the frequency, but we use things like Google Ngrams for that, not Google Hits. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@Festucalex just tell me if you get my point, because I think it got lost or maybe you get my point but still disagree, which is ok
my point: the software is named/inspired by the philosophy; thus, the philosophy should take precedence not the software. Hence why the move request to move the philosophy to this page/name
That’s it
Ps: I hate when people just hide behind or tag irrelevant FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: Yes. I understand your point, and I'm trying to tell you that guidelines specifically contradict it. From WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: Being the original source of the name is also not determinative. Boston, Massachusetts is the primary topic for Boston, not the English town from which it took its name. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
then what is “determinative”? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: Pageviews Analysis and Link Count for Ubuntu and Ubuntu philosophy 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Does it count accidental page views. Above I gave the example of the page Neger. It is about a german torpedo not the n word in german FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: I don't know, you're the one with the onus probandi to prove that the largest Linux distribution by share somehow gets a significant amount of accidental page views. 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@Festucalex no we can just swap the page for a month and see. Normal scientific method if you want to check a simple hypothesis like this FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
That if we both care about finding out. But yah, you can make me shoulder that burden FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Can you also cite policy for this metric please. As if it’s true it’s enforcing the geographical bias in Wikipedia and creating a circular argument, and need to be challenged but not here of course FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose, possible WP:SNOW close. The software is so obviously the primary topic that there's no chance in hell this request would succeed. O.N.R. (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is the overwhelmingly the WP:PTOPIC in English-language sources, which are the sources that matter for making such a determination among similarly-named topics on the English Wikipedia. I also have to point out that the software is named/inspired by the philosophy; thus, the philosophy should take precedence not the software is not how Wikipedia determines titles in any way, and indeed WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY specifically mentions that "Being the original source of the name is also not determinative." Enceladus is named after Enceladus (giant) yet is still the primary topic because in the English language, when someone says "Enceladus" they are overwhelmingly referring to the moon. The same is true for "Ubuntu" and this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Just because it is currently more popular, doesn't mean it is primary topic. Walrasiad (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Nobody said it should be primary because it is popular. However, if by "popular" you mean highly likely ... to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term then yes, per WP:PT1 that is exactly what a primary topic is. As is both true now and was well-established in the 2018 move this term was and remains what readers are looking for when they look for "Ubuntu", using the metrics of either page views or (less-ideally) Google results (GBooks example). Either way, WP:PT1 shows a clear primary topic in this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
My critical word was "currently", meaning not "long-term significance", i.e. "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" (WP:PT2), so not primary topic. Walrasiad (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
A topic need not meet both PT1 and PT2 in order to be a primary topic; meeting PT1 shows primacy in this instance, especially because neither one has any more long-term significance than the other as far as English-language usage is concerned. English-language usage of Ubuntu as a philosophical concept does not have long-term significance compared to this topic, especially outside of South Africa. Barring a single usage in a 1999 book, the article for Ubuntu philosophy lists no pre-21st century usage of the term in English, and most of the examples listed of English-language usage are after Ubuntu not only became an operating system but was already the most popular distro by any reasonable metric such as downloads or DistroWatch ranking (2005 example). Just because it is currently more popular, doesn't mean it is primary topic. may be true if you can show significance for the other topic in some other way that reasonably contests PT1, but that statement by itself is not enough to move this page. - Aoidh (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Walrasiad Ubuntu as an operating system is still significant. It is still the most used operating system that runs Linux, it receives a significant amount of coverage today, and it will more than likely proceed to do so in the long term as Linux continues to rise in popularity. I see no reason to not keep the OS as the primary topic. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Page views don't matter in terms of whether or not something is a primary topic, @Crouch, Swale - policy does not take it into consideration as to whether or not something gets a significant amount of page views. There is a severe amount of coverage on the Ubuntu operating system compared to coverage on the philosophy. Therefore, its pretty cut and dry that Ubuntu the operating system takes precedence here. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Page views count for the usage criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the more views it gets the more likely its primary by usage. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose per previous page move discussion, and the fact that title popularity is judged on how popular something is and whether or not something relating to it is consdered the primary topic. Ubuntu as an operating system is far more popular than the use of the word itself (just check English-language sources and Google), therefore, I am suggesting the aticle stay at its current title due to it meeting primary article criteria. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No policy/guideline-based argument given by nom. Absent evidence of greater incidence, the outcome of the last RM takes precedence. Nardog (talk) 06:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose The OS is clearly the primary topic, per above. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding UwUntu to unofficial Ubuntu distributions

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There is an OS based on Ubuntu which is not listed on this article. I would suggest adding UwUntu (So far as an unofficial distribution) to this article. As I am not the best editor, I leave this proposal here for consideration. Helos00111 (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

There are hundreds of unofficial Ubuntu variants. UwUntu has no article on Wikipedia, so it is not notable. - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay. That's why I wrote it here instead of editing the article right away. Thanks for the explanation. Helos00111 (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

PIE and buffer overflow protection

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

These were relevant in 2010, but nowadays seem to be used pretty much everywhere? --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 23:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Primacy of name is wrong

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As the article states, the Etymology of Ubuntu software is derived from Ubuntu philosophy, which precedes it by 20 to 40 years. It is therefore counterintuitive that the software is given the primacy Ubuntu title, rather than the philosophy it is named after. Babakathy (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

"Ubufox" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect Ubufox has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 26 § Ubufox until a consensus is reached. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Licensing Obfuscation

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under license theres a link to "Free software" which is a badly written article. It does not become clear to a layman that in general a modified Ubuntu cannot be freely distributed! The article here should clearly mention in a separare section that there are restrictions to be aware of. At the moment it reads like a Canonical marketing campaign. 2A02:1210:2E1A:500:506D:BAC0:41A0:AB97 (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see https://askubuntu.com/questions/219/under-what-license-is-ubuntu-can-it-be-legally-modified-and-distributed. I've added "except trademarks" to the infobox. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ubuntu/Archive_14&oldid=1257758067"