Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

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)

Infobox

Where the in the info box it says ubuntu's package manager is dpkg (frontends like synaptic available), it is wrong. Technically synaptic is a front end to apt, while something like gdebi is a dpkg frontents. Ss73666 (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot of Ubuntu Desktop 11.04 shows copyrighted content

Current screenshot of Ubuntu Desktop 11.04 shows Mozilla Firefox displaying Ubuntu home page that contains a couple of non-free logos or icons: Dell, Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla Thunderbird and Skype. According to Commons help pages such a screenshot cannot be published under a free license. I suggest replacing the screenshot with one that does not show the Ubuntu home page. --Rprpr (talk) 11:36, 17 May 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)
~~Weak Oppose~~ Weak Support mainly due to size issue 1. the historical interest of the UNE interface replacing the main GNOME interface 2. netbooks shipped with UNE not Ubuntu (should old versions of Windows get merged? probably not for similar reasoning) Widefox (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Checked - 98SE is subsection, so seems appropriate Widefox (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Support I also agree with Ahunt for similar reasons. The retrospective UNE section of the Ubuntu article should speak of it as a past experiment, as UNE survived for only a couple of release cycles. Mediator Scientiae (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Support I support this because in the new version of ubuntu the desktop version will no longer be strictly gnome based. We could also make it a subheading anyways. Also, I think this article is far too small and needs more content. Bvc123q (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Support because Ubuntu Netbook Edition is set to be discontinued. James Michael 1 (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Support because Ubuntu Netbook Edition is on feature parity with Ubuntu Desktop in the current version, 11.04 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.132.37 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Support As above. Greenman (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Support I agree with Ahunt. Wolfehhgg (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Question: The size issue is important - this article clearly is exceeding the limits suggested by WP:SIZE. However, UNE probably shouldn't stay as its own article for importance reasons. As an alternative, what about merging it as a historical section at List of Ubuntu releases? Steven Walling 10:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - the netbook edition does not lose notability because of the fact that it is being discontinued. If it was worthy of a separate article, it's still worthy of a separate article. Folding even more info into the Ubuntu article does more harm than good. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a question of notability. It's about the fact that netbook edition doesn't actually exist anymore. It's a historical release, and thus probably does not deserve the level of detail that the current separate article enjoys. Steven Walling 02:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  - A historical release is every bit as worthy of an article as a current one. We do not retire articles after the subject of the article is superseded. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    - Reducing the coverage of a subject that used to be very important as a software distribution because it is only of historical interest is simple editorial common sense. Content wouldn't be deleted because the subject is not notable, but because the level of detail that speaks about netbook edition as if it actually still existed is unnecessary and misleading to readers looking for current information. Steven Walling 03:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Ubuntu Mobile and Gobuntu seem to have been canned a long time ago and Ubuntu JeOS disappeared into thin air, and they all still have their own articles, because they were completely separate releases, just like Netbook. These articles have even less information than the Netbook article does. Besides, we shouldn't be making the article any larger, like 99.255.58.85 said. Cody⁵⁷⁴ 01:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Would be quite silly. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

With no more opinions expressed on this subject in the last week, I think we can close this as "no consensus". - Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you've erred. There were more supports than oppose comments. The consensus appears to be to merge. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - The netbook edition should be kept as a separate article on a former variant of Ubuntu. The merge would add too much text to the current article. --Rprpr (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Just because a software product is no longer offered does not mean we should remove or merge the article. --Falcorian ^(talk) 13:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - this article is long enough and UNE article still has notability. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't want to get into the middle of this edit war

The phrase "The new GUI have received strong criticism" is grammatically poor and needs repair. It should either be "GUI has" or "GUIs have". Fix it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is terrible grammar. Fix it. We don't want Hickipedia we want Wikipedia. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.192.230 (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Most popular linux distro?

The lead contains the following statement, "and it is considered by DistroWatch to be the most popular distribution of Linux.[13]". I'm changing this to reflect the following:

Ubuntu is is the most popular Desktop distro, and this is certainly not just according to Distrowatch
Ubuntu is not the most popular Server distro, The prevalence of linux in the server world makes this an important distinction to make.

Its the lead for a featured article so I figure these kinds of details are important to get right. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 19:43, 1 July 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)

"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)

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)

isnt Lubuntu now official ? 94.168.168.153 (talk) 08:48, 6 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)

Two and a half months later... By now the available statistics have degraded substantially. As of September, the Wikimedia squid logs (for example) show that around 66% of Non-Android Linux user agents are unknown (and rising). It isn't credible to maintain the "fifty percent" figure anymore. -- Exeva (talk) 14:02, 26 October 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 consistent 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)

It's a bit more complicated than that. AMD named its 64-bit extensions to the x86 instruction set, x86_64, prerelease. AMD officially named these extensions, AMD64, upon release of the first so equipped processors. Intel's prerelease name for this same technology was, Intel64. Upon release, the name was changed to, EM64T. Just so everyone gets their personal agenda met, we can just settle on x86_64_amd64_Intel64_EM64T. But if someone is offended that Intel's names are last, we can switch it to, EM64T_amd64_Intel64_x86_64. Or, each time there's a petty feud over it, we can close our eyes, plug our ears, and say, "I know you are, but what am I?," over and over. The person who can hold his urine and go without food the longest wins!

Ubuntu is a fork off Debian unstable. Debian 64-bit packages are called, amd64, simply because of the technological paternity. That does not imply the 64-bit packages are incompatible with Intel processors. Fedora uses, x86_64, to describe its 64-bit branches, so distros that fork off Fedora use it too. Since Ubuntu is Debian, the proper terminology is, amd64. 32-bit processors are NOT referred to as x86, because not all x86 processors are 32-bit. i86 is 8-bit, i286 is 16-bit, and i386 is 32-bit. These are named after the 8086, 80286, and 80386 Intel processor families. The size of the processor registers remained 32-bit up until 64-bit processors were invented.

The whole point of standardized terminology is effective communication. If we redefine everything according to the limitations of ignorance and more ignorance, chaos results. This is nowhere more obvious than on the wikipedia site. AwesomeMachine (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

i386 and amd64 are internal technical names. Publicly (eg the download page) Ubuntu uses "32 bit" and "64 bit". Scott Ritchie (talk) 10:50, 27 October 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)

Ubuntu ARM official support

Ubuntu 11.10, released on October 13, includes official support for the ARM architecture. Shouldn't it be added to the "Supported platforms" section on the top right?

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/100711-ubuntu-1110-to-feature-arm-251728.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.67.60 (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

True, thanks for pointing that out. I've already added it. --SF007 (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Popularity

Walter Görlitz, please stop undoing my edits. Currently this article claims that Ubuntu is the most popular desktop distribution, citing http://distrowatch.com/stats.php?section=popularity as reference. That page clearly refers to itself as “Page Hit Ranking statistics”. A text search for “desktop” only gives “Desktop BSD” as result.

There is no back up at all for the claim that the data generated on DistroWatch only refer to desktop Linux installations.

The 20m users are an estimate made by Canonical. The given reference clearly says so. Since that number is not independently verifiable, the encyclopedic way to use that is to at the very least state who came up with that number.

--KAMiKAZOW (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

KAMiKAZOW please stop adding WP:POV edits. Currently you're in ~~violation of~~ danger of breaking Wikipedia's three revert rule. As for your claims, Wikipedia is not about truth but rather about WP:RS. If you would like to contest the source as reliable, that's your choice. Otherwise, you're not going to get very far with your crusade. Cheers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As for your "source", it's not at all accurate since it's "a list of unique IP addresses that have connected across all releases." So that means for the millions of users who have no fixed IP, they have been registered multiple times. The claim should be removed by you immediately as misleading. And I'll tag the lie as such. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

KAMiKAZOW actually only made 3 edits to the article today, not all of which were reverts. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Changing comment. Each time you remove material is considered a revert. From WP:3RR: "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." He removed existing material and therefore it qualifies as a technical revert. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You've been the one doing the reverts. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The only one making POV edits is you, Walter Görlitz. Canonical’s 20m users claim is in no way verifiable at all. Fedora’s statistics are at least transparent. The original statement in this article was: Ubuntu has 20m users, therefore it’s the most popular.
Unless a distribution is sale-only (eg. the Enterprise variants of SUSE or Red Hat), the only somewhat reliable method of gathering an estimated user base are repository connections and I do think it’s plausible that Canonical uses repo connections to estimate user numbers, just as Fedora (or openSUSE). I think it’s the encyclopedic way to clearly point out conflicting data:

DistroWatch claims – on page impressions alone – that Ubuntu is most popular.
Canonical claims that Ubuntu has 20m users (method unknown).
Fedora claims to have ~35m users (=> 15m more, based on repo connections).

Therefore the Ubuntu is #1 claim is disputable.

I tried to make that clear as neutrally as possible.

Simply reverting someone’s work several times and then pointing to some revert rule against that someone is definitely not encyclopedic work. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there isn't actually any (provided) source disputing DistroWatch's claim. Your argument comes from combining Fedora's and Canonical's claims. This is called original research by synthesis, which violates Wikipedia policy. If you can find a single reliable source that ranks Ubuntu below Fedora, we can add that alongside what DistroWatch says. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing the data from DisroWatch. I was, in fact, disputing the original “synthesis” of Cannonical’s 20m users claim and DW’s page rank. Check the article history. It said that because Ubuntu has 20m users[Canonical claim as ref] it is the no. 1 Linux distribution[DW page as ref].

According to your link, it’s not forbidden “synthesis” to say “Canonical claims 20m users, whereas Fedora claims ~35m users.” The forbidden “synthesis” would be to state that DW is wrong because the comparison of each Fedora’s and Canonical’s own data. And yes, I have to admit that hindsight my edits can be interpreted that way, although it wasn’t my intention which is why I didn’t add the word “wrong” to my edits.

That said, is Canonical’s 20m users claim a reliable source, considering that Ubuntu is not sold and therefore Canonical can’t just ask its accounting department for the numbers? It’s an estimate based on a method entirely nontransparent.

DW’s ranking is also no usage data. It currently sits in between usage data from various sources (Canonical, W3Tech) but DW’s data consists only of page impressions by visitors of its own site. That makes DW just a popularity contest – noteworthy but not as part of usage statistics, IMHO. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the original text was synthesis, but when you use the word "whereas" aren't you implying that there's a contradiction between the figures?

I have no comment on the reliability of Canonical’s claim, other than that I imagine the majority of Ubuntu users downloaded it from Canonical, which they can measure.

I don't understand why page views would measure "popularity" and not "usage." It shows that Ubuntu is the most popular among DW visitors, by showing that it's the most used among DW visitors. - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually not making POV edits just recognizing yours and removing. Stating that IP addresses=users is either wilfully ignorant or intentionally misleading. You decide. While DistroWatch may not be accurate, it doesn't have a point to make. Perhaps a neutral source would be better. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Josh: So without any evidence how Canonical came up with that 20m users claim, all we have is imagination how Canonical came up with it. I've mailed Canonical PR and asked them about how the number is calculated and whether it includes sister projects just as Kubuntu.

As for DW: All what DW measures is how many times a page for a distribution is clicked per day. Visiting a page does not make the visitor a user of that distribution. For another WP article I used DW to get release dates of past Pardus Linux releases. While I am a Linux user, I don't use Pardus. Nevertheless DW counted my page hit – possibly even multiple times. As soon as a distribution hits DW’s news stream, people click on its page and its 'popularity' rises. It’s also easy to cheat DW because even from the same IP a hit is registered every day – simply set a DW page as your browser homepage and that distribution rises in 'popularity'.

Walter Görlitz: Shut up. I am no longer willing to talk to you troll! I am the one who initiated that discussion here, while you were the one doing the reverts. Yet you accuse me on my talk page of not discussing and reverting. So leave me alone. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Shut up? Because you step on facts and I point it out? I tagged your page with 3RR which you broke even after a discussion here that you hadn't and then you did it. Tempted to take to WP:CIVIL.

As for your point about the number of users claim with Canonical, you have an excellent point: it's their claim. Your OR about how to raise your numbers for DW is just that. Finally, it appears that we do need a neutral third-party, say a Linux publication, for numbers rather than push inaccurate sources. Even if the Fedora source listed the number of IPs for other distros, it wouldn't matter because IPs is not an accurate way to determine the number of users. Imagine the user base that iOS would have that way--picking up different IPs as the iPhone drives along the road. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I missed it that that topic is also discussed in the Reception chapter of the article. I now have merged both into that chapter. And before Walter Görlitz starts lying again: No info was deleted, just moved.

It now also has a clear separation between user base figures, reception by critics, and known large scale deployments. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to a WP:CIVIL debate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The Ubuntu user agent and measuring popularity

This could fit in either the Supporting fifty percent or Popularity sections. Last week Ubuntu patched themselves back into the Firefox user agent. As such, next month we should have some reasonably fleshed-out statistics from StatOwl, the Distrowatch server stats, and Wikimedia squid logs saying what percentage of Linux user agents are also Ubuntu user agents.

Reinstating the "most popular client distro" clause may be appropriate if the figures agree this ratio is greater than 50%. I'm almost afraid to ask, but there is agreement that user agent counting should take precedence over DistroWatch page hits, right? Exeva (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu: “We’re not GNU/Linux”

From: http://dissociatedpress.net/2012/03/27/ubuntu-were-not-linux/

One of Canonical’s former employees points out that Ubuntu has never been officially “Ubuntu Linux” to avoid the GNU/Linux thing. Fair enough, but Canonical had been pretty free with the term “Ubuntu Linux” on the Web site until a few years ago as a descriptive term if not the official name. The point, as far as I’m concerned, stands – a few years ago, Canonical stopped actively marketing Ubuntu as “Linux” and just went with “Ubuntu.”

What do you think? Arpabone (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this still in relation to this edit?

The primary reason that Unix-like is in the infobox is that the other Linux distro articles that I looked at had similar.

Are you proposing that this information be added elsewhere? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's terrific that the greatest family of free operating systems ever can't accept what its own name is, so nobody dares to call it anything any more. Great marketing, guys. Keep it up. (Well, Arpabone did ask). --Nigelj (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2012 (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)

Ubuntu does not use the "linux" kernel but the "ubuntu-kernel based on upstream kernel" - at least that says the changelogs for the current beta2 of ubuntu 12.04. Nowhere do they refer to themself as Linux.

--78.50.81.105 (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ubuntu uses the Linux kernel. Its marketing carefully avoids mention of "Linux" because they don't want to be embroiled in the GNU/Linux naming controversy. If you actually used Ubuntu, then you would see Linux mentioned quite often, such as in the software packages for installation and upgrade of the kernel. Elizium23 (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2012 (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)

Nobody denies that Windows is an operating system: it has its own kernel that no other operating system uses. Similarly, OS X is an operating system. Solaris is an operating system, because it has its own kernel, like Windows does. Unlike Windows, however, there are different distributions based on the Solaris kernel or its descendents, most notably Oracle Solaris, OpenIndiana, and Nexenta Core Platform.

In the same way that Oracle Solaris and OpenIndiana are two Solaris distributions, Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, Gentoo, and so on are different GNU/Linux distributions. The operating system here is GNU/Linux, the Linux kernel plus the GNU userland and build tools. With Linux distributions being called "operating systems" in article titles, Wikipedia is using the term "operating system" incorrectly. It's as simple as that. Talk of consensus here is simply a ploy to let the ignorant drown out the voices of people who know something about computing.

And "Mark Shuttleworth and Canonical" are "reliable sources" on this issue? How can you seriously make such a claim? Clearly, they are not impartial observers. Calling Ubuntu an "operating system" is a deceitful marketing stratagem, and nothing more. Canonical doesn't want uninformed computer users to realize that they have free software alternatives to Windows other than Ubuntu. Honest Linux distributions have the word "Linux" in their name. Dishonest Linux distributions don't. -- Herzen (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

So, your POV is that Ubuntu is "deceitful" and "dishonest" and that those of us telling you that it is indeed an operating system are ignorant? Keep that POV the hell out of the article. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If calling Ubuntu an "operating system" is a deceitful marketing stratagem, then the entire Linux community is ignorant of computer terminology, something I doubt.

"Arch Linux is the operating system of choice for many people around the globe"[3]
"The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system. This operating system that we have created is called Debian GNU/Linux, or simply Debian for short. "[4]
Fedora is a Linux-based operating system, a collection of software that makes your computer run.[5]
openSUSE is a free and Linux-based operating system for your PC, Laptop or Server.[6] (and seeing as how Microsoft has their hands in openSUSE's cookie jar, I would imagine they would jump on the chance to not call it an operating system if that was a valid argument.)

I'd give more examples, but you get the idea. There wasn't a single distribution that I went to that didn't refer to their distro as an operating system, and like it or not, reliable third-party sources agree. - Sudo Ghost 05:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You took the quote from the Arch Wiki out of context, which makes me doubt that you are conducting this discussion in good faith. If you read the whole article, it's clear that the term "operating system" in the quote you give is being used loosely for stylistic purposes, and that quote is buried deep in the article. The first sentence of the article reads: "Arch Linux is an independently developed, i686/x86-64 general purpose GNU/Linux distribution versatile enough to suit any role."

Not only does Ubuntu avoid including Linux in its official name, unlike Arch Linux or Red Hat Enterprise Linux, for example: the word "Linux" does not appear once on the Ubuntu home page! Does that not strike you as odd?

Wikipedia is meant to be a reliable, independent source of information, not a vehicle for viral marketing for corporations like Canonical. -- Herzen (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not what you say. Feel free to check Wikipedia:Five pillars for what it is. We distribute what reliable sources say. It seems that for the purposes of Wikipedia, Ubuntu is an Operating System. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Being a distribution and being an operating system are not mutually exclusive. All of these are Linux distributions and operating systems, so both are used in the Arch Linux source. Reach Out to the Truth 06:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Arch Linux website called itself an operating system, this is not a contextual usage. That it also calls itself a distribution does not mean it is not an operating system. As for Ubuntu not having "Linux" blatantly obvious in its name, I'm failing to see what that has to do with Ubuntu being an operating system or not. - Sudo Ghost 15:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"The Arch Linux website called itself an operating system". What are you smoking? How can a Web site call itself anything? And assuming for the sake of the argument that a Web site can call itself something (as far as I know, only people can do that), why should we take this alleged claim by this Web site to be an operating system seriously?

In other words, a Web site can't be an operating system. But if Ubuntu is an operating system as you claim, anything goes, so any old Web site is an operating system, too. -- Herzen (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Of all the programming code used by Ubuntu, roughly 1% of it is unique to Ubuntu. The other 99% is straight-up Debian unstable branch. Debian is a computer operating system. Ubuntu is just a name slapped on top of Debian. The most accurate description given to Ubuntu is: A fork of the Debian computer operating system, which most Linux distributions are. The entire article is a combination of advertisement for Ubuntu, and justification for independence status from Debian! The Ubuntu propaganda has really gone too far, and wikipedia is no place for it! Ubuntu IS a shadow of Debian by another name! It has gained great popularity among desktop users, because you can't really do anything with it but go online and view porn! All of the documentation is directly out of Debian, with extremely minor changes. So, I suggest the article refer to Ubuntu not as an operating system, but as a fork of the Debian unstable branch operating system!

I also suggest that the article employ honesty and legitimacy. Debian has a policy that was written in the early nineteen-nineties, describing criteria for inclusion of software in the Debian operating system. Part of this document states that Debian software cannot be taken, altered and sold! So, rather than lying and claiming Ubuntu encourages open-source software, why not be honest and say Ubuntu is bound by International Copyright law to make available its products as free downloads online. No developer maintains packages for Ubuntu. The developers maintain packages for Debian, and Ubuntu propeller beanies make copy-and-paste alterations.

Truth is superior to agenda. So, rather than redefining words to suit an agenda, just tell it like it is! AwesomeMachine (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth though. It's about reliable sources. In that respect it is both honest and legitimate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If Debian is an operating system and Ubuntu is a name for Debian, doesn't that make Ubuntu a name for an operating system? Ubuntu does indeed encourage open-source software on this page. I can't vouch that the encouragement is sincere, but nevertheless they encourage it. I ask you to please follow Wikipedia:Assume good faith instead of accusing other editors of lying. - Josh (talk | contribs) 05:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu Pronunciation and IPA Representation

Hi all,

While researching this OS, I wanted to learn the correct pronunciation. From what I found so far:

https://help.ubuntu.com/8.04/about-ubuntu/C/about-ubuntu-name.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fJF5UIS_hE

I believe the IPA pronunciation at the top of this article needs tweaking. Specifically, I would replace both occurrences of ʊ with u, as per this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key

I'll let this topic sit for a while and if no one responds then I'll just change it.

Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver510 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at these links:

I think it should remain as /ʊˈbʊntuː/ 190.51.145.206 (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggest merger

It has been suggested that U-lite be merged to this article, per the AfD discussion occurring for the U-lite article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U-lite (2nd nomination). Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Since it's not supported by Canonical, I'd say no to a merger. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Totally agree with Walter. (81.110.205.9 (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC))

Latest unstable release

This should list the date that the latest unstable version was released, not when the unstable version will become the latest stable version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.121.193 (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

By definition, unstable versions aren't "released". They are not released until they are released. mmj (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Update Unity Reviews?

Disclaimer: Not trying to be an Ubuntu fan-boy, But the section here and on the Unity page mentions reception of older versions. Now that the next LTS version has been released, perhaps it's time to update and mention more modern reviews? Critical reception seems to be more positive now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.45.12 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Can Ubuntu be called a "free open source software"?

I object to the claim that Ubuntu is FOSS.

First of all it utilizes a kernel containing binary blobs, which are one of the worst anti-freedom tricks out there.
Secondly it automatically offers users non-free drivers (which were not that bad when they were called "proprietary drivers", but unfortunately they're "additional drivers" now).
Finally the "software center" is full of proprietary programs which is not only against the users' freedom but also against the wider sense of the "open source" idea.

Ubuntu is not very far from being FOSS - the Trisquel distribution maintainers provide a single (though non-trivial) shell script for liberating Ubuntu. However you can't really say it is free, especially in the overview. I'd suggest removing the mentioning of Ubuntu being FOSS. A section about the freedom issue could be added as well however it's a more general problem of some modern Linux distributions so it probably doesn't belong here at all. 150.254.2.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC).

Ubuntu self-identifies as FOSS on its website. Do you have reliable secondary sources that describe the non-free nature? We would need those to write any critique. Elizium23 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This indicates that the bullet's I provided above violate the Free Software Foundation's idea about what can be called "free".

As far as the kernel goes I can only provide this - the procedure of "liberating" Ubuntu which consists, among others, of substituting the Ubuntu kernel with a linux-libre kernel.
This documentation page, though clearly warning about the proprietary nature of the drivers, also confirms that they are offered to the user automatically saying "Usually you will see a notification and/or an icon in the top panel, reminding you that restricted drivers are available.". It is worth noting that this report mentions that "We install some drivers (like Broadcom wifi) straight from Ubiquity now, which certainly makes sense for devices where there is no free alternative." indicating that in some cases Ubuntu will not be 100% free by default.
As for the third bullet, in the documentation for the Software Center there is a section about commercial software which is clearly non-free. There are also some popular free of charge non-free programs there such as Skype or Flash.

So to clarify my note: FOSS clearly means Free_software among others, but the creators of the "free software" term don't recognize Ubuntu as a valid 100% free system.

62.21.22.160 (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly zero of those links are reliable secondary sources. What we're looking for is a news article (or a book, or similar publication with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking). Elizium23 (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

All of those, apart from the wikipedia link, are "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves". The Ubuntu claim they're FOSS, the Wikipedia states FOSS means "free software", the FSF say Ubuntu is not "free", so if the Wikipedia article can be considered reliable enough, I think it glues these into a proof of a contradiction. However I understand, what kind of a source you request and I will try obtaining one. Thank you for your guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.254.2.20 (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wubi

As shown here, there are limitations to Wubi

SilverWolf7 (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that is mentioned about hard reboots is that "When you hard reboot, there is always a chance of damaging your filesystem, whether you use Wubi or not." It says nothing about being "more vulnerable to hard reboots". More vulnerable than what? - Sudo Ghost 16:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

More vulnerable than normal installation. Because it uses Win loader

Any gotcha?

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. SilverWolf7 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Updating Spoken Wikipedia Recording

I was listening to the Spoken Wikipedia recording and I found that most of the text has been changed so I am going to update it.Jamison^Talk_Guestbook^Userboxes 10:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

But I am going to significantly edit the text in the near future. -- Jorge (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Critical reception - reflecting the citations

The following text was in the article, supported by the references below.

The introduction of the Unity desktop (from Ubuntu 11.04) was almost universally criticised[117][118][119][120][121] for being counter-intuitive and clumsy, however, with the release of Ubuntu 12.04, reviews are more positive toward a more stable and polished Unity.[122]

Obviously on Wikipedia we want to reflect accurately the sources we are citing. I don't believe the paragraph above does this.

117 and 119 are regarding articles about Ubuntu versions prior to 11.04. Even if they were about 11.10, the paragraph doesn't seem to reflect what they say. Whilst 119 does provide some criticisms, I do not think that is the overall message from the article. For example "Its unique visual style melds beautifully with Ubuntu's new default theme and its underlying interaction model seems compelling and well-suited for small screens."
118 is probably the most appropriate of these references, although even this is clear that "The unique design provides an enticing alternative to the likes of Microsoft Windows and Apple’s Mac OS X."
120 does not seem at all to criticise Unity. In fact the title says it is "in good shape"
121 does offer a very critical view, although acknowledges clearly that others will feel much more suited to Unity.
122 doesn't make any reference to Unity in 12.04 being more stable or polished

I hope this explains why I felt the need to make some changes to the paragraph - the sources don't match what is said. Of course it is possible that the article is actually "correct", but appropriate sources have not been found.

I felt merging this paragraph into the "Releases" section was good idea, as there is already a sentence there that talks about this issue:

The new GUI has received strong criticism from some users as too different from and less capable than the previous Gnome Panel,[68] while other users have found they prefer the new approach and the minimalism compared to the older desktop paradigm.[69]

This is why I ended up with:

The new GUI has received strong criticism from some users as too different from and less capable than the previous Gnome Panel,[60][61] while other users have found they prefer the new approach and the minimalism compared to the older desktop paradigm.[62] However, those positive about Unity also believed there was much room for improvement.[63]

Of course there is lots of room for improving this paragraph, but I think it is a significant improvement on the original paragraph. -- Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 19:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of Ubuntu Wiki and Community Documentation as sources

In the "System Requirements" section, I removed text that depended on Ubuntu Wiki and Community Documentation as sources. I think these sources will not be accepted when we promote this article to featured. -- Jorge (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Vendor support

I have just reverted an edit by Remember the dot (talk · contribs). A brief peruse of a few of the references removed showed that the edit summary was a bit lacking, and that while some of the deleted material may have been out of date, it was not invalid. The deleted text contained about 15 citations, and I think that deleting most of them on the bases given was a little over-bold. Starting at http://www.ubuntu.com/partners it appears that Asus, Dell, HP and Lenovo are active OEM partners. A glance at the Dell site certainly showed laptops available by online mailorder with Ubuntu pre-installed from the US site.[7] I don't think you can judge Ubuntu according to US availability only, and I don't think you can judge Dell only by on-street retail outlets either. I'll try and find time to go through some of the other previous suppliers and see what they offer now with a view to an update. I don't think the best way to deal with out-of-date, referenced information is to replace it all with US-specific hearsay. I don't think we can ignore Lenovo and HP in any update, and there may be dozens of others out there awaiting just a little research. --Nigelj (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the pictures has a legend of operating systems that forked off of Ubuntu, and the legend is useless. it refers to dashed lines yet all the lines are solid. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.194.66 (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Related RfC at Talk:Adware#RfC: Should the article be renamed?

I tried to make a start at some of the aspects above for which we seem to have reached rough consensus. In order to be able to link to a page describing software that automatically displays advertisements, rather than the apparently and sadly contentious "adware", I started to adapt the adware entry to this purpose, with the stated intention of renaming the page to a neutral term also. However, another editor says we need to have an RfC about that. So, here it is : Talk:Adware#RfC: Should the article be renamed?.Russell E (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Adware - constructive suggestions please

Quick version:

Please make some suggestions on how we could improve this article by referring not just generically to advertising, but instead to a page that specifically covers advertising in the context of software user interfaces. (What relationship would that page bear to the existing adware entry?)

Long version:

I'm done making proposals as I'm being shot down from all angles, for contradictory reasons. But I still think it's a serious shortcoming that this entry links to nothing more specific than advertising. Advertising rendered by software is a topic worthy of its own article, in the same way that television advertising, infomercial, online advertising, etc, are. I now agree with my critics above - clearly "adware" does carry negative connotations. Try to find a reliable source definitively describing Ubuntu as adware and you won't succeed, for this reason. On the other hand, try finding a reliable source that includes any reference to negative connotations in its definition of "adware" and you also won't succeed! For this reason, we're not allowed to say in the adware entry that the term has negative connotations.

So now we have the bizarre situation where Wikipedia defines "adware" in terms of a set of objective criteria which Ubuntu unambiguously meets, but Wikipedia does not describe Ubuntu as adware. People on Talk:Ubuntu are yelling at me for linking Ubuntu to adware because the term is pejorative, while people on Talk:Adware are yelling at me for saying the Adware entry needs to refer to the pejorative nature of the term and/or needs to be renamed to a more neutral term. Both back up their claims by pointing out, correctly, that no reliable sources exist to support my position.

All by the book, and yet completely confounding common sense. Ubuntu's not adware because we can't find a reference to support non-pejorative use of "adware" in this context. But "adware"'s non-pejorative by definition, because we can't find a reference to support the fact that "adware" is pejorative. Not adware unless proven guilty, not pejorative unless proven guilty. Two contradictory claims which the rules would appear to demand that Wikipedia makes, regardless of the contradiction.

To me, that self-contradiction is madness. But not only that, the encyclopedia is less useful than it could be, because the Ubuntu entry is not able to link to a more specific and informative article on software advertising.

I'm done trying to propose a way forward, but I plead with you all--- PLEASE make some constructive suggestions as to how Ubuntu can refer the reader to a more usefully specific article on the display of advertising by software.--Russell E (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your points are not unreasonable but I think that you are aiming at the wrong things to achieve possibly partly meritorious objectives. Firstly of course, it is necessary to be careful about one's categorisation of entities, and secondly it is equally important to be careful about one's characterisation of such entities. Thirdly, having categorised and characterised the entities that one is discussing or dealing with, it can be very important to be cautious about the terminology one uses. One sees that sort of thing every day in every little squabble about politics, feminism, racism — you name it! Those subjects have become so sensitive that I cannot even safely choose one as an illustrative example, but suppose slightly more academically, I were to review a restaurant and speak of the swill that they served up, compared to the food served in the restaurant next door. I think you will agree that I would be inviting considerable umbrage and probable litigation. Technically there is nothing about the choice of word that one can pin down as criticism of the taste or nutritive value of the food, nor even of the service, and yet it is not a term that encourages custom, especially from people who have seen pigs being fed.

Now, as soon as one attaches a particular term to a given class of object there may be an evaluative, as opposed to impartially descriptive, overtone in context, whether intended or not. As pointed out, where one would speak, cumbersomely, of software that in some way or context delivers advertising messages that might or might not be relevant or even welcome to the function it performs for the recipient of those messages, then any overtones would spring from the accompanying text and subtext; there is little evaluative burden to that descriptive terminology. Terms such as adware on the other hand are not specifically descriptive but do bear powerful associations with largely offensive, or at least dismissive overtones. You can argue that point in any direction you like and can compel anyone you like to accept that there is nothing intrinsically offensive about it, but you haven't a hope in hell of escaping the unspoken and not necessarily logical pejorative overtones. The moment you use a word like adware in speaking of generally benign, often widely popular, products such as Ubuntu, you will get backs up, no matter how innocuously you had intended the term. Bear in mind that on the one extreme the associations shade into products that might as well have amounted to malware for all the good, and certainly for all the harm, they do to any sucker who has downloaded them, whereas on the other we have the likes of Firefox, Thunderbird, Gmail, Adobe Reader and hundreds of others that have served billions of people well for years now, some with no obvious ad burden, and others with slight and non-obtrusive occasional suggestions that their custom would be welcome for some product or another. Some such products are actually very good. Our TV news channels should be so inoffensive!

Even if you could find some reasonable basis for allocating particular terms to particular categories of fee or free software available on various terms with various overheads and considerations etc, it does not follow that you could get people both to use the right words, and to stick to the intentions of the definitions that you had provided. A couple of years into the early days of computer malware, some bodies concerned with the various types and manifestations of the malware that appeared, proposed descriptive terms for the various classes of such software: viruses, worms, rabbits, Trojans...; I simply cannot remember them all offhand but there were at least a dozen, probably more if you count the various versions of lists that appeared. Now, each of those terms was reasonably conceived, and no one deeply concerned with the subject would have any difficulty understanding which was which or for that matter which types could reasonably be described under more than one heading. And yet, in spite of the attempts of the cognoscenti to use them in proper context, the terminology never stood a moment's hope of effective general use. Today "virus" and "malware" probably cover better than 90% of all public usage of such terms if I were to guess at a figure. It is a pretty savvy practitioner who can tell a Trojan from a worm nowadays. And in comparison to terms like adware, those are not particularly emotive distinctions. I hope that makes sense to you in our context. I am certain that you could propose terminology and conventions that would cover all your concerns in all contexts relevant to Wikipedia, but I don't believe for a moment that you (or the rest of us as a body of Wikipedians) could do better than avoiding the sensitive terms and instead using circumlocutions such as "a software tool that has been produced by a commercial shop as part of some of their promotional initiatives". But I am ready to be proven wrong. JonRichfield (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That's fine -- I agree that we cannot coin a new term and cannot adopt existing pejorative term (even if no reputable sources exist to document that pejorative nature). So we are stuck with circumlocution. Fine. How can we then create a page that describes that class of software, without using the naughty word for it, in order that our enclycopedia may be usefully interlinked and readers of Ubuntu (operating system) may simply click to find out all about the historical and contemporary context of software that renders advertisements in its user interface? I've proposed a couple of ways and they've been shot down. No-one's allowed to say anything without "proof", even though the omission in one article contradicts the omission in another, both motivated by lack of "proof". Comically I've been accused of opposite flavours of evil intent. Everyone's dug in against assumed bad faith. I'm sick of trying. So I would like someone else to propose a way forward that actually does better than the cop out of just linking to a generic advertising entry. Once you guys tell me what to do I'll be more than happy to get on with the job of creating a better encyclopedia.--Russell E (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ubuntu as "Adware"

Most participants in the discussion agree that the software should not be classified as an adware. Minimal usage of the term with attribution appears to be the compromise.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I object to the use of the phrase "Ubuntu is a form of adware". I agree there is an adware element to the new Amazon integration, but it cannot be oversimplified to say the entire OS is adware, nor can it be said that it's nothing but an adware app, so I think this needs to be removed. I fully approve of the rest of the additions in that paragraph from 518826255 although the link in the latest revision doesn't work. Needs to point, as does ...6255 to http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/09/23/on-the-recent-dash-improvements/ simply.--Lookmomnohands (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is about the entire distro. The revenue is surely used to support the product as a whole, not any particular aspect of it. The whole project is supported by advertising. Furthermore, the part of Ubuntu that renders advertising is deeply integrated within the OS. Wikipedia defines adware as "any software package which automatically renders advertisements" and advertising as "a form of communication for marketing and used to encourage or persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners; sometimes a specific group) to continue or take some new action". To me this is fairly cut and dry.

I realise that a label of adware is seen as perjorative, but the term also has a factual meaning, and the fact of the matter is that Ubuntu now fits this meaning. We could add references (such as the ones I already added to the critical reception section) to refer to notable opinion on adware status, but to me it's not a matter of opinion. The term is well-defined and Ubuntu fits it.--Russell E (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanation, but it is essentially original research. Wikipedia reports what is in reliable secondary sources. The source given for the sentence about "adware" says "While I am certainly sympathetic to us not abusing Ubuntu and filling it with adware, bloatware, and crapware, I don’t think there is anything wrong with providing services and content that is strongly related to the needs and interests of Ubuntu users and that can generate revenue to continue the investment in Ubuntu." It seems to me that this statement is both somewhat conjectural and also not a direct description of Ubuntu being itself adware. Worse yet, this article is a blog, which does not have sufficient editorial oversight or a reputation for fact-checking required by Wikipedia. We cannot use Wikipedia's voice to describe Ubuntu as adware unless it is the majority view. If we do find any reliable sources that describe it so, we can start by attributing it to a particular author or publication. Here are some articles about the Amazon controversy, note that they also fall short of saying "Ubuntu is adware". [8] [9] Elizium23 (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, distinction should be made between OS versions, no version before 12.10 could be described in this way. Elizium23 (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The blog you and I both cite is actually a Canonical PR man trying to argue in favour of the inclusion of advertising. I cited it not to support the adware claim but instead to document the fact that Canonical derives revenue from this advertising. The distinction between original research and fact is that the former is debatable whereas the latter is not. For example you won't find too many references on wikipedia for the fact that 'a' is a vowel or that 1 is the multiplicative identity for integers and real numbers. It seems undeniable that Ubuntu 12.10 is adware under Wikipedia's own definition of the term. Unless there are factual grounds to doubt this, it should be stated as by-definition fact rather than referenced opinion. I stand by this, but should the majority disagree with me, let's at least put it up as referenced opinion. References abound. --Russell E (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are quotes from the articles cited: "Canonical is reining in its Ubuntu Linux distro's new Amazon "adware" desktop search feature after penguinistas vented their rage." "Version 12.10 is imminent, and many Ubuntu users feel like the Amazon inclusions are nothing more than adware." "Some users hate this and have declared Ubuntu to be adware." It may be accurate for us to report that some authors believe that Ubuntu contains adware; I would hesitate to say that "some users called it adware" because that just seems like repeating a rumor that came up on forums somewhere. It would be best to reflect a majority opinion and follow the NPOV policy of WP:DUE weight. Elizium23 (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point, but if this is the tack WP is to take, then the adware and/or advertising entries need to be changed, because at the moment the definitions are very specific, and Ubuntu meets them. If there is room for opinion regarding the application of the terms adware or advertising, then the articles need to reflect this. Failing this, Ubuntu meets those defintions as a matter of definition, not opinion. Perhaps "adware" needs to be cast as subjective term that is specifically derogative, rather than being an objectively defined class of software of which Ubuntu unambiguously a member. --Russell E (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Then we could link to advertising-supported software as a nonpartisan term... except that at the moment it redirects to adware. --Russell E (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Then again, "advertising-supported software" also suggests an opinion, namely that the advertising revenue is exclusively used to support the creation and maintenance of software, as in a non-profit organisation. That's not the case with Ubuntu or most other adware/advertising-supported software, so that term is probably inappropriate. --Russell E (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just reverted an edit by 99.29.174.188 which deleted the information about adware plus some material that predated the adware comments. The explanation is wrong on multiple accounts. It says that "Ubuntu does not track user data nor does it record any information to Amazon. Therefore, it is not considered adware." First of all, these things, if true, would partially fill the definition of spyware. There is no mention in the adware entry of it having to track data or disclose it to third parties. Secondly, Ubuntu does in fact require the user to agree to the storage of their search terms and IP address by Canonical and the sharing of this with third parties including Facebook, Twitter, BBC and Amazon. See the Reception comment for a reference to a media article concerning this. The actual Ubuntu Legal Notice can be found here [10].--Russell E (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC

Should this article say that "Ubuntu is adware", "Ubuntu is considered to be adware", "Ubuntu contains adware"? Should we instead use the term "advertising-supported software"? Discuss how WP:NPOV, particularly WP:DUE, and WP:RS apply. Elizium23 (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: As Ubuntu is Free Software the label 'adware' is not accurate. Adware is unwanted. The term adware is used to refer to programs that open a popup out of nowhere. Its ok to name the sponsors and what they requested. But adware is other thing.--Neo139 (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Unwanted is an objective term, however it seems lisvke the reaction to the addition qualifies as "unwanted". Adware is "advertising functions integrated into or bundled with the software", it doesn't matter what legal license comes with the software, so Ubuntu being "free software" is irrelevant. - Sudo Ghost 03:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the use of the word adware as well, and it definitely does not apply to Ubuntu. Adware has a connotation of intrusive advertising - and even if one were to consider the shopping lens "unwanted", it is quite a stretch to consider it intrusive. Also of note, Google products are not considered adware, but they are all funded by advertising revenue.--haha169 (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The adware entry says nothing about being "intrusive" in its definition. To follow up your position we would have to modify the adware entry to include intrusiveness in the definition, and then go back to every article that uses the word, change those articles to reflect that adware status is opinion, not fact, and reference those opinions. Just sayin'. References abound to document this in the case of Ubuntu's new adware. As for Google, as far as I know they do not provide any software that runs on user hardware which specifically renders advertisements. Most of their software runs on Google hardware and so users see them as services, not software, and therefore they are advertising-supported services not advertising-supported software (adware). Whether one is really so different than the other, personally I wouldn't think so (people have just become desensitized to advertising and privacy violations since the advent of web services), but it's not my place to alter common usage based on my own opinion. Google Chrome and Chrome OS run on user hardware but they just render whatever is encoded on the web page being viewed, with no knowledge of what is advertising and what is not. I don't know about Android.--Russell E (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I would again ask you not to refer to other Wikipedia articles, which are not reliable secondary sources, and also to refrain from using original research or synthesis to determine what wording to use in this article. I would also like to point out to those who oppose, that Wikipedia reports what is said in reliable secondary sources, so if the majority opinion was that Ubuntu IS adware, then we would have to say so in the article; however, in my observation, the articles have not done so. Russell E claims that "references abound", yet the references I have audited say nothing of the kind. I have quoted those references above. Please use direct quotes from references when making your case. Elizium23 (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As noted earlier, it is a simple matter of definition. A very small fraction of the words used in every wikipedia sentence are given a reference because language relies on the use of accepted meaning. Only when claims made by a choice of words is subject to opinion or needing proof is a reference needed. Where is the reference for the fact that 'a' is a vowel, for example? Wikipedia does not cite one. Does that make the "a" entry original research or lacking references? Wikipedia links to its own article if the reader wants to know what 'vowel' means. 'Adware' is the same. If we don't think so then we need to modify the adware entry to indicate it's a subjective term first, and then go ahead and document all claimed adware statuses in every article that uses the word.

Secondly the references which I said abound are references to show that users are unhappy with the intrusion of advertising. It is correct that references calling Ubuntu adware are fewer, but they are not nonexistent. I added a reference yesterday where the Free Software Foundation calls Ubuntu adware and also uses the word malicious.

Thirdly, you have deleted the text from the entry claiming that this discussion has reached consensus, when clearly with about an equal number of supports to opposes, it has not. I'm not interested in a revert war, so I will leave your edit, but please let it be recorded that your edit was not in good faith.--Russell E (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The only thing your comment will record is that you failed to assume good faith about my motives. I will say, in charity, that since you have been a member of Wikipedia since 2004, that the policies on original research and synthesis may not have been fully fleshed out when you joined, and you may have remained ignorant of it due to a low edit frequency since that time. But I invite you to read WP:OR and try to understand what we are telling you here. You cannot read a definition of anything off a Wiki page and then apply it to a complex software project and say it is a simple matter of definition. The reference you added, from the FSF, is firstly not a reliable secondary source with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight, and secondly does not say "Ubuntu is adware" as you keep wishing, but it says this: "This adware is one of the rare occasions in which a free software developer persists in keeping a malicious feature in its version of a program." In other words - the feature is adware, it does not necessarily taint the whole distribution. Furthermore, if you actually used or knew Ubuntu, you would know that Unity is an optional component with options to disable these features. Although the default feature is adware, that does not give you the right to tar all of Ubuntu - even server editions and prior releases - with the same brush. If you want to talk about numbers, then I would say there are one and a half supporting your position, which includes yourself and the single-purpose account (who is also using your brand of synthesis) below. I count five total oppose positions from the other commenters in this thread of seven commenters. Please correct me if my count is somehow wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Please refrain from making personal attacks.

2. Consensus is not the result of a vote. Your count is skewed by the non-inclusion of User:SudoGhost's comment, which refutes the claims made by those who cast an oppose vote. Four people have spoken in opposition, three have spoken in support (but one of these has not cast a vote). That's not a consensus oppose position. However see point 4 below.

3. You are welcome to do whatever snooping you like to substantiate that I have no association with or knowledge of User:124.168.142.245. I too would prefer to see comments from a registered account with an edit history.

4. You say that adware is not a simply defined term, in the way that say operating system or software are. Would you agree, then, that the adware article (or its naming) needs significant revision if the term is as subjective as you seem to believe it to be? I suspect that is going to be the upshot of this, as significant contention as to the meaning of the term seems to exist. Potentially the entry should be renamed to something like advertisement-rendering software. But I would like to know that if I go ahead and fix it, it's not going to be deleted wholesale and trigger more debate. For example, are people then going to query the meaning of advertising, as in Shuttleworth's Doublethink-style assertions? [11] Are we going to end up with a description that avoids any words people don't like but which then becomes too long-winded to belong in the introduction? The inclusion of advertising is a tectonic shift for the free software world. The fact that Ubuntu is adware (or insert favourite long-winded alternative description here) is one of the key pieces of information users will want to know. It belongs in the opening paragraphs and I would argue also in the infobox as the business model of a product is at least as important as its source model.

5. The dash is an integral part of Unity, and Unity is an integral part of Ubuntu. In fact Unity is one of the defining characteristics which separates Ubuntu from other distributions with which it shares thousands of components in common. It does not make sense to say that only the shopping lens of dash is adware, or that Ubuntu is not adware because you can turn the ads of off, or that it's not adware because at one time it wasn't adware. Is the uterus and placenta the only part of a woman that is pregnant? Does the option of an abortion make her not really pregnant? Does the fact that she was once not pregnant make her not pregnant now? --Russell E (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh please inform me where I made this alleged personal attack. An exact quote or diff would be lovely. I gave you a very civil answer considering the situation. SudoGhost refuted a comment, but did not himself express an opinion on the RFC. If he wants to support one of the proposed wordings then he is welcome to register that opinion here, but these "support" and "oppose" polarized "votes" are useless since I gave many options in the RFC question, and it is clear that there is much support for a statement such as "[publication] says that Ubuntu contains adware". I don't oppose any assertions that use this kind of phrasing. Furthermore, you are the first one who brought up numbers as if we are voting, and I wanted to correct your faulty count - from my POV, I still see quite a few editors arguing against you plus the SPA. The rest of your argument is again WP:SYNTH, so please re-read the policy until you get it. Elizium23 (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(Goodness, I am nearly running out of fingers to count colons on.) I am not interested in argument or in winning an argument, particularly at a personal level. I will leave it to you and your conscience to review your postings for elements of personal attack, condescension etc. Your RFC has revealed significant difference of opinion on the meaning of "adware" and you have suggested a way forward, so let's run with that. What I propose is this:

1) adware be renamed to advertisement-rendering software (with a redirect from adware) and modified to reflect the fact that the term "adware" is seen as pejorative by some. In the long term it should include a social history of advertising in history and also encompass both software that runs on user hardware and software hosted by a third party as a service to users.

2) The infobox lists Ubuntu as advertisement-rendering software (as of version 12.10) or lists the business model as paid advertising and services

3) The introduction, in the third paragraph, adds to the earlier text on Canonical and its funding sources to include "the display of paid advertisements in the default file manager, Unity Dash", or similar.

4) Use of the word "adware" be in the form of direct, referenced quotations, most likely in the Reception section.

What's your view on the above?

(I cannot help but state my personal view here, which is that people who profit from these things are in the business of constantly inventing new words to describe what they do, then decrying the use of the previously accepted word due to the negative connotations their shabby practices have caused the public to associate with that term. I think adware has met this fate, and Shuttleworth is currently in the business of trying to redefine the meaning even of the word "advertising". Apparently a solicitation to purchase an item is not an advertisement if payment occurs only on the basis of closing the deal instead of on making the solicitation, and these are not ads but simply targeted search results... LMFAO. This is straight out of Nineteen Eighty Four ("we have always been at war with Eastasia"), which surely nearly everyone has read, and yet still it seems to work on people. It's very hard to write a self-consistent hyperlinked encyclopedia when powerful people deliberately generate meaning creep for personal gain. Language itself loses meaning if the definitions of terms become manipulated for personal gain.)--Russell E (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. meaning creep == semantic drift.--Russell E (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if we can move forward here.

First of all, let's establish that Dash integrates contextual advertising.

The search terms that users type into the Dash are sent to Amazon, which parses the information for keywords and then displays targeted advertisements in the results based on those keywords.

Type "firefox" into the Dash and it displays an icon for the Firefox web browser, and 6 advertisements, including a

$14.35 double Blu-ray dvd collection
$7.09 movie dvd
$6.99 widescreen dvd movie

Type "nautilus" into the Dash and it displays an icon of your home folder, an icon for the "files" folder, and at least 5 advertisements, including a

$459.99 exercise bike
$9.99 music cd
$259.00 car seat
$19.99 video game
$10.99 music cd

Type "privacy" into the Dash, and it displays an icon for the Privacy application, and at least 3 advertisements, including a

$4.98 book
$2.49 piece of music
$1.55 iPhone screen protector

Type "shotwell" into the Dash, and it displays an icon for the Shotwell Photo Manager, and at least 5 advertisements, including a

£15.50 movie dvd
£7.99 music cd
£6.09 book
£7.99 music cd
£5.98 book

Source for the first three pictures: 1

Source for the last picture: 2

In addition, an Ubuntu developer (also a Debian Developer), Paul Tagliamonte wrote this in his blog:

Stuff that’s bothering me about Ubuntu right now

As many of you know, I love Ubuntu. I’ve given years of my life for Ubuntu. I’ve served as much as anyone’s expected to, and long upheld the ideology and technical motivations behind Ubuntu as second to none.

Until recently.

Now, with advertisements in the default DE (and don’t tell me they’re not, when I search for term and get “The Terminator” on DVD, it’s a ad — if you care so much about whatever binding to search applications, why not disable ads by default, and let super-s do your “shopping”), and now, begging for a handout when people Download Ubuntu — without an option to donate to Debian, which composes over 70% of the Desktop, I get upset.

I feel cheated, and I’m not even involved on a day-to-day anymore.

I’m ashamed of what’s going on now, and I hope we find a better way to serve our users.

(emphasis mine)

A final analogy should put this matter to rest:

When you search for something in Google, and Google parses your search terms for keywords, and displays advertisements based on those keywords in the search results, we understand that this is advertising.

When the exact same process occurs in the Dash, it should be uncontroversial that this is also labelled as advertising.

Contextual advertising isn't something recently invented by Canonical. It's a business model that's been around for a long time, Google has been using it since the 90s to generate billions in profit, it's well established, it makes money, and will probably be with us for some time to come.

Ok, now that that's out of the way, let's move on.

If we can agree that the sources of computer related definitions I cited in my initial support comment are reliable, then how about putting something like this in the introduction:

. . .

A late addition to the list of features appearing in the Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal release was the integration of contextual advertising into the Unity Dash.1 According to various sources which define computer related terms, this feature meets the definition of adware.2 3 4

. . .

124.168.142.245 (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with much of the above, whilst I agree with it 100% (and really feel for Paul Tagliamonte), is that it is mostly original research. Also, it would help your credibility if you registered an account and edited under that. Unfortunately I guess we are not in a position to resist meaning creep - what we need to negotiate how much meaning creep will be allowed. We must concede the defintion of adware to not include self-proclaimed "good guys". Are we allowed to use other words like "advertising" or are we going to accept self-interest-driven creep in the meaning of those terms also? To me that has sadly become the crux of this conversation. At the end of the day we will end up just giving a list of pixels that light up.. should be pretty uncontentious.--Russell E (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Forget WP:NOR, this is an issue of WP:NOTADVERTISING.

Let me illustrate this with an analogy.

Imagine if Steve Ballmer announced that Internet Explorer 8 is not a web browser. He said that it is actually a program for fetching various HTML documents depending on the user's input of Universal Resource Identifiers, through a protocol known as Hypertext Transfer Protocol, and then rendering those fetched HTML pages into a human readable format.

You'd think that he'd lost his mind.

Why? Because it's an absurd statement to make: his description of what IE8 "actually is" happens to be the precise definition of what a web browser is.

Ok, but he would never say that because he has no good reason to make such a preposterous claim.

A new feature is announced in Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal which leads to controversy among its user base. Mark Shuttleworth responds to the controversy by stating that the embedding of advertising in the Unity Dash program does not make the Dash adware.

Has Mark Shuttleworth lost his mind? The exact definition of adware is a program with advertising embedded within it, so why would he make such an absurd claim?

Canonical Ltd. has been operating now for some 8 years, and it has yet to turn a profit. It has been able to maintain this state of affairs in no small part due to the largesse of it's founder, Mark Shuttleworth.

The head of marketing at Canonical understands the power of good public relations. In 2009 he was ranked as one of the top 10 marketers in the UK according to Marketing Magazine's Little Black Book. His last job was as head of marketing at Sony Ericsson.

The marketing team at Canonical understand that not calling a program which has advertising embedded within it adware is good advertising.

Wikipedia is not Canonical's marketing team.

Not calling a program which has embedded advertising within it adware violates the policy that Wikipedia is not a means of advertising.

It violates the policy that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion.

It violates the policy that Wikipedia is not a place for public relations pieces promoting a product.

124.168.142.245 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Support: Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal meets the definition of adware in several reliable primary sources.

First source is Webopedia which according to their About page is "a free online dictionary for words, phrases and abbreviations that are related to computer and Internet technology."

Webopedia defines adware as:

(n.) (1) Adware is the common name used to describe software that is given to the user with advertisements embedded in the application. Adware is considered a legitimate alternative offered to consumers who do not wish to pay for software. There are many ad-supported programs, games or utilities that are distributed as adware (or freeware). Today we have a growing number of software developers who offer their goods as "sponsored" freeware (adware) until you pay to register. If you're using legitimate adware, when you stop running the software, the ads should disappear, and you always have the option of disabling the ads by purchasing a registration key.

(2) Another use of the phrase adware is to describe a form of spyware that collects information about the user in order to display advertisements in the Web browser. Unfortunately, some applications that contain adware track your Internet surfing habits in order to serve ads related to you. When the adware becomes intrusive like this, then we move it into the spyware category and it then becomes something you should avoid for privacy and security reasons.

Are advertisments embedded in Quantal? When you search for "terminal" in the Dash (which is a key component of Unity (itself the default UI in Quantal)), a few pictures pop up, among them the DVD cover for The Terminal with a $5.65 price tag across it. Source This is known as a contextual advertisement. It's the same thing Google does with AdSense.

Second source is TechTerms.com which, according to their About page, is a "free online dictionary of computer and technology terms."

TechTerms.com defines adware as:

Adware is free software that is supported by advertisements. Common adware programs are toolbars that sit on your desktop or work in conjunction with your Web browser. They include features like advanced searching of the Web or your hard drive and better organization of your bookmarks and shortcuts. Adware can also be more advanced programs such as games or utilities. They are free to use, but require you to watch advertisements as long as the programs are open. Since the ads often allow you to click to a Web site, adware typically requires an active Internet connection to run.

Most adware is safe to use, but some can serve as spyware, gathering information about you from your hard drive, the Web sites you visit, or your keystrokes. Spyware programs can then send the information over the Internet to another computer. So be careful what adware you install on your computer. Make sure it is from a reputable company and read the privacy agreement that comes with it.

Is Quantal free software supported by advertisements?

Canonical is supported by a revenue stream it gets from Amazon, which pays Canonical money for allowing it to target advertising to Ubuntu users when they search for keywords in the Dash.

Third source is PCMAG.COM encyclopedia whose About page I couldn't find. PCMAG.COM is the online magazine of PC Magazine which published from 1982 to 2009. PCMAG.COM itself has been online since 1994.

PCMAG.COM encyclopedia defines adware as:

(1) (AD supported softWARE) Free software supported by advertising messages. See adserver.

(2) (ADvertisementWARE) Software that periodically pops up advertisements on a user's computer. Adware displays ads targeted to the individual user based on key words entered in search engines and the types of Web sites the user visits. Also called "pitchware," the marketing data are collected periodically and sent in the background to the adware Web server.

Is Quantal free software supported by advertising messages? Yes, as stated earlier.

By these three definitions Quantal is adware. This article should state that Ubuntu is adware.

124.168.142.245 (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)— 124.168.142.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oppose. It is ridiculous to expect to be able to insert such a comment in Wikipedia's own voice. If suitable sources can be found that do so, we may say something along the lines of, "This feature led commentators including X, Y and Z to accuse Canonical of including adware in this release of Ubuntu", or whatever it is that the most reliable and notable commentators actually say in print. Instead of looking up definitions of adware in online wikis, people who want to see this inclusion should be looking up quotes specifically about Ubuntu 12.10 from the most influential industry commentators, and quoting them here with full citation. See WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR for the reasoning behind this. --Nigelj (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose This is an intersting discussion, and one I would like to lend a voice to. It seems to me that there is a significant issue with the definition of "adware". If there is so little consensus amongst those here, it is reasonable to expect a similar state of affairs in the wider readership of the article. Therefore, it seems common sense to avoid the usage of the term and instead utilise different wording that is both more easily understood by readers and more easily referenced in primary sources. Something along the lines of "Starting with the 12.10 release of Ubuntu, Canonical has begun offering links to Amazon products when users utilise the search function of the dash, with Canonical receiving revenue when users click on these advertisements and make a purchase. This change has been met with some controversy." This avoids the issue, side-steps the problem of defining adware, and gives factually correct information to readers. Svennig (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no controversy about the definition of adware. The only people who have an issue with it are Canonical's marketing team. 124.168.142.245 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed? Your declaration is an astonishing one given the discussion above. But you're still missing the point. We can convey the current state of affairs without using the term. Why not do so, end this, and go and have a cup of tea? Svennig (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I'm not a tea drinker :)

On topic though, adware is a widely used term with an unambiguous meaning: software which has advertising embedded in it. Unity Dash transparently fits this definition. Based on this standard definition, it is not controversial to label Dash as adware. On the other hand it is controversial, if you're a company trying to achieve profitablity, to label your newest product as adware. Canonical has a smart business team, and they understand that a good way to make money is to integrate adware into their flagship product. They also have a smart PR team, who understand that it's commercial suicide to actually call this business model adware, so they don't.

Now wikipedia is not Canonical's PR team. It's an encyclopedia, and people expect it not to be a platform for promotion or an advertising vehicle. Not using the standard widely agreed upon definition of adware - software that has advertising embedded within it - for the special case of Canonical's newest product would be an obvious violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING.

124.168.142.245 (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the wording that I've suggested could in any way, shape or form invoke WP:NOTADVERTISING. In fact the opposite is true as it more clearly states the contentious issue than simply applying the "adware" label. Calling Ubuntu adware is also extremely misleading. As a collection of software packages (chromium, firefox, the linux kernel, GCC) very few of these will be supported by the advertising revenue. Moreover, Kubuntu (which, to my understanding doesn't have the ad integration) will benefit from the money made by Ubuntu (through structural and architectural benefits). Does Kubuntu become adware as well? This seems perverse if it doesn't offer any adverts to users.

There are issues with the application of the term adware here that are delicate. It doesn't matter how much you assert that it's clear cut - it isn't. However, if you want to find a source that calls it adware and meets WP:RS and WP:DUE then by all means call it adware, cite the source, and lets end this. It seems to be an entirely manufactured controversy with a staggeringly obvious solution meeting WP:COMMON: don't use the word and explain in more detail what's going on. Svennig (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to concede that the meaning of "adware" has become contentious. But I think the wording you offer above is too verbose for the introduction. Yet this is very important information that belongs in the introduction and the infobox. How about what I propose above in my comment of 11:28, 24 October 2012? --Russell E (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I support Svennig's proposed wording. I don't understand what else has to be done - it uses nearly the exact same wording and conveys the exact same meaning as what was on the article before, all except for the word "adware". Until we can settle the definition of this word, and whether or not it applies to Ubuntu, I believe Svennig's wording is perfectly neutral. --haha169 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to either support or oppose it. On one hand, it seems to reflect the need for increased clarity in the definition of the terms here, and that's likely a necessary (or desirable) long-term outcome of this. However, it's a change which has a scope greater than the RFC here and I'd suggest it needs some slight tweaking. I agree with your third point as I understand it. Your second point is interesting - there's no mention of business model or income method on the infoboxes of Fedora, Windows or OS X, so adding this information here would be somewhat odd. It should definitely be mentioned in the article on Canonical, however. Svennig (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you have agreed with the third point, I have just made this modification in the third paragraph of the introduction. Regarding definition of adware, see below for a new RfC.--Russell E (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there are a few problems with your suggestion Svennig:

"Starting with the 12.10 release of Ubuntu, Canonical has begun offering links to Amazon products when users utilise the search function of the dash, with Canonical receiving revenue when users click on these advertisements and make a purchase. This change has been met with some controversy."

Firstly, the word "offering". It's a marketing term. Canonical is no more offering people anything than advertising billboards offer people things.

Secondly, it reads like copy. The way it's worded makes it sound like this is some new feature that the boffins down at Canonical recently came up with - "LIKE OMG!UBUNTU! 2012! Quantal Quetzal!! Cool New Feature!!! Just hit Super and Search!!! It Just Works!!!!" It'd be more accurate to explain to readers that this isn't a new feature, but an old business model - contextual advertising - which internet companies have been using to target keywords since the 90s, and traditional media have been doing for decades (make-up ads in women's magazines, etc.)

Thirdly, it's misleading to not state that it is adware. The definition of adware is clear - software which embeds advertising. The Dash plainly embeds advertising. You don't need a WP:RS to state that the Dash is adware anymore than you need a WP:RS to state that Microsoft Excel is a spreadsheet application, or Mozilla Thunderbird is an email client.

You state that "There are issues with the application of the term adware here that are delicate." You're right, it is a delicate issue - for Canonical Ltd's bottom line. But the profitability of a private enterprise is irrelevent to this encyclopedia.

How 'bout this in the introduction:

The October 2012 release of Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal marked a shift in the business model for Ubuntu's main developer, Canonical Ltd. With the integration 1 2 3 4 5 6 of adware into the default user interface of Ubuntu Desktop edition, Canonical expanded its business operations from it's traditional customer support services into contextual advertising. This shift was met with some controversy among the Ubuntu community, with some members asserting that the integration of adware into Ubuntu was tasteless and a violation of privacy. 7 8 9 10

124.168.142.245 (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be obsessed with Canonical's PR department and their bottom line. This is entirely irrelevant. What's at issue here is what is most useful to the readers of the article. If that corresponds with their PR then so be it. If it doesn't, so be it. Every time you reference them it seems like you care more about being contrary than you do about what's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. I'm going to continue to discuss in keeping with the principle of good faith, but you need to put forth arguments more compelling than "We should do it because Canonical doesn't want us to". I'm therefore going to ignore the three points you've laid out, where discussion will prove fruitless, and focus on your suggested wording, which I've modified slightly below.

The October 2012 release of Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal marked a shift in the business model for Canonical Ltd. With the integration 1 2 3 4 5 6 of contextual advertising into the default user interface of Ubuntu Desktop edition, Canonical expanded its business operations from it's traditional customer support services into advertising-supported services. This shift was met with some controversy among the Ubuntu community, with some users and commentators labelling the software as adware <REFS> and asserting that the integration of such adware into Ubuntu was a violation of privacy. 7 8 9 10

Specific comments: 1) your links attached to "integration" are wholly insufficient. 2) We can't call it tasteless unless we can surround it in quotes and reference the source directly.

I still don't understand why we're even contemplating the usage of a word that so clearly meets the criteria of "value-laden labels" of WP:AVOID. Svennig (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Because to many of us, the word itself is not clearly value-laden. It has grown to have value associated with it because the practice to which the term objectively refers is considered bad by many people. Notice that people attach the value to the practice, not the word. There are other words like this, too -- adultery, fraud, trespass, rape, murder. Using these words objectively describes a potentially objectionable practice. This is different to using a word that contentiously attaches extra value to a practice-- for example, words like draft-dodging, poofter, tree-hugger, cult etc. We're not talking about calling it "crapware", which loads value in this way, or "malware", which is somewhat subjective and contentious. That using the word adware has apparently been turned into a social faux pas by those who don't like their practices being accurately described to a public who disapproves of them bothers me hugely (imagine Charlie Manson objecting to the term "murder"), but if that's the way it is then I agree the word shouldn't be used in Wikipedia's voice. --Russell E (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is well made, and I understand your point. For me, the term adware has an implication of low-quality software which may be a malware vector. This is likely because it's a relatively uncommon business practice that reflects the value of the software; if it was higher quality it would simply be sold. Adware therefore gets applied to software that is bad (functionality, appearance, user experience), disruptive (frequent popups) or overtly malicious.

A google search gives a similar assertion. Ad-aware, the first result, is about how to remove it along with spyware and viruses. Sophos claims to "secure your network from adware and spyware". Another site reviews the top 10 free adware, spyware and scumware removers. About.com talks about how to remove it in an article in their antivirus subdomain. Symantec talks about removing adware. The open university talks about how to protect yourself from it. The majority of the results portray it as something that must be guarded against and removed when found, and associate it with spyware, malware and viruses both by treatment and direct comparison. Nothing in the results could give you any impression that it was a good thing.

The meaning of the word has therefore been (and continues to be) corrupted, and not by Canonical. Adware should have no value, there should be good and bad adware; it's just a business model. But the perception of the negative side has grown to eclipse any thought of a positive. It's as if, in your example, the common understanding of "murder" had changed to a very specific form (let's use the example of strangulation). In this case, if someone killed someone with a knife they should object to the application of the term surely? Svennig (talk) 07:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Svennig, and your justification is excellent, but this is all rather irrelevant to the fact that we have quotes from sources and none of them come out and say "Ubuntu is adware" so there is no possibility of including such an assertion in the article. If the situation changed in six months, and there were a wave of reviews that said exactly that thing, then you would hear no objection at all from me to include the phrasing in the article. It is still early in the 12.10 release, and things could certainly change, especially if Canonical does not change their stance. So let's report what's happened so far, let's repeat what people have already said, and let's take a wait-and-see attitude regarding the a-word. It is the only prudent course to pursue. Elizium23 (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Svenig--thanks for your thoughtful response. I'm not quite sure of the final paragraph. There is also no good murder. A premeditated killing may be considered "good" in certain circumstances but in that case the word murder would not be used to describe it. So the term murder is already specialised in the way you're suggesting that adware has become. That's why we have separate entries for murder and homicide, with murder carrying the extra condition of being unlawful (and premeditated). We have separate entries for those. I think if we are going to take adware to mean something more specific and value-laden than simply software that renders advertising in the user interface, then we need an entry that discusses the latter and which can be linked to for further information when describing objectively the behaviour of the software, not people's opinions of it (which the narrower sense of "adware" would seem to dictate). However someone over there (on Talk:Adware) seems to think this is ridiculous. I'd value your reasoned view on the matter (either way).

(Incidentally, in comparison to your "adware" google, plug in "ubuntu amazon". It too is dominated by negative assessments and information on how to remove it. Just for interest's sake.)--Russell E (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it wasn't to say that there's "good" murder, but more that there's increasing redefinition, perhaps through specialisation, of words. Sometimes, this really sucks - I hate the fact that we've lost gay as a term denoting merriment or simple joyfullnes. I've put a few ideas into the the adware talk. Primarily I think it's important to separate the business model, which is quality agnostic, and the software, which may be good or bad and may be more or less intrusive, more or less problematic for privacy etc. It's still a big change, however, and one that we might be able to side-step (at least until we can cite that Ubuntu has been called adware without troubling WP:DUE) Svennig (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So what if it's a big change? Have a look at the current adware entry.. it's crap! Be bold!. At the moment I feel like every byte of editing results in a kilobyte of argumentation with condescending, wilfully-obstructive sycophants (present company excepted). It's nearly enough to make me think, bugger it, just leave it crap and give up. WP:BOLD seems to have faded with time. When I signed up it was passed on to me as a guiding principle, in the welcome message. Now it seems crap comes with aggressively defended inertia. Ah well. I don't give up quite that easily.--Russell E (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have some responses to your points Svennig. You write:

You seem to be obsessed with Canonical's PR department and their bottom line.

The reason I keep mentioning Canonical Ltd. is because apart from their objections to the use of the word "adware", I can't see a reason for not using that term.

You write:

This is entirely irrelevant.

I agree. I've said as much: ". . . the profitability of a private enterprise is irrelevent to this encyclopedia."

So now you say that the opposition to the word adware by Canonical's PR department is "entirely irrelevent", but previously you wrote:

There are issues with the application of the term adware here that are delicate.

Who thinks this issue is "delicate"? I can't think of anyone but Canonical's public relations team who consider it "delicate" to apply the term. Which leads me to assume that you think their objections are an important thing to consider. Which leads me to point out that they aren't.

You write:

What's at issue here is what is most useful to the readers of the article. If that corresponds with their PR then so be it. If it doesn't, so be it. Every time you reference them it seems like you care more about being contrary than you do about what's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia.

I keep referencing Canonical's PR department because apart from them, I don't know anyone who is confused about the definition of adware. Everyone understands what the term means - software with embedded advertising - it's unambiguous, it's widely used, it's part of the zeitgeist of the internet age. Everyone understands that the Dash precisely fits this definition. On the other hand, Canonical understand that it's bad PR to call their new product adware, so they create confusion in the definition of adware by denying that their piece of software - with advertising embedded within it - is adware.

You write:

I'm going to continue to discuss in keeping with the principle of good faith, but you need to put forth arguments more compelling than "We should do it because Canonical doesn't want us to".

I'm not suggesting we should use the term adware because "Canonical doesn't want us to". I'm suggesting that we should use the term adware because it's a widely used term, with an unambiguous meaning which plainly applies to the Dash. I don't find the arguments that assert that we shouldn't use the term adware - we can't because it's a "delicate" issue - very compelling. The only people I'm aware of who consider the use of the word adware a "delicate" issue are Canonical's PR team, but wikipedia is not Canonical's PR team.

You write:

I'm therefore going to ignore the three points you've laid out, where discussion will prove fruitless . . .

Do you feel my objection to the use of the word "offering" is unjustified? If so tell me your reasons why - I'm happy to discuss the issue. Actually I will amend my second point. The beginning of your proposed suggestion reads like copy: "Starting with the 12.10 release of Ubuntu, Canonical has begun offering links to Amazon products when users utilise the search function of the dash". The rest of your suggestion is more encyclopedic - I should have made that clear - my bad.

My third point ties in with you last point:

I still don't understand why we're even contemplating the usage of a word that so clearly meets the criteria of "value-laden labels" of WP:AVOID.

Firstly, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with using a value-laden label. Take the term computer virus. It's certainly value-laden, yet it's used all over wikipedia. Why? Because even though it has value attached to it, it's a useful descriptive phrase, with a fairly clear definition, that is widely used within the computing industry.

Secondly, not using value-laden labels is a useful policy when the label in question is difficult to apply because it's very subjective - for example using the word "perversion" to describe a sexual practice. What is or is not a "perversion" depends on the particular beliefs of the person you're asking. Adware on the other hand, has an unambiguous, widely shared definition that doesn't depend on the beliefs or opinions of the person you're asking. Does the software in question embed advertising? If yes, then it's adware.

One might say, "Well why not use another phrase like 'advertising-rendering software'?" Well, because that sounds like a marketing euphemism used to describe adware without actually using the word. It's not part of the vernacular of everyday computer users. It would violate WP:NOTADVERTISING because the only people I can think of who would be pushing for its use are marketers of adware.

Thirdly, there are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia. I think there are often good reasons for why we shouldn't use certain words in wikipedia, but I don't see a good reason not to use the word adware here. Most of the reasons so far listed seem to boil down to variations of "companies that produce adware find it contentious when the term adware is applied to their products".

Let me address this issue of "if we can find a WP:RS then we can use the word adware, but until we do we can't use the word". What would a reliable source look like? Would a group of the world's top adware scientists have to carefully place the Dash inside the quantum-vacuum environment of the sample chamber lying within the heart of the newly-completed-after-34-years-of-construction-multi-trillion-dollar-joint-Japanese-US-Russian-Chinese-EU funded Large Adware Detector (LAD), start it up and come back in two years after it's recorded a few octillion readings. Then take a sophisticated statistical analysis of the data by running it through the worlds most powerful zettaflop-rated-distributed-massively-parallel-cluster-array-of-hyper-linked-super-computers, and finally, after much back and forth about how to interpret the results, all the scientists sign off on a joint paper and send it to the top journal in the field, get the paper peer-reviewed, receive criticisms, amend the paper, send it back to the journal, get it reviewed once more and finally get it published? Then we can put something like this in the introduction:

A recent paper published in the Proceedings of the International Society of Adware Scientists has found some evidence that seems to suggest that the Dash is adware.

Or would it suffice to merely quote the the leading authority on adware:

Professor Penny Brumbleweather, the current Baron von Turnipfoot Chair of Adware Studies at Oxford University, has stated that, "After decades of research I think it's now fair to say that the Dash is adware."

What about if Jane Random Wikipedian looks up the definition of adware in the dictionary, finds that it applies to the Dash and puts this information in wikipedia. No, no, that won't do, that's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. What about if someone interviews Professor Penny and asks her if the Dash is adware, and after looking up the definition of adware in the dictionary, she states that the Dash is adware. Could we quote her as a WP:RS? Or would we need to ask the world's top adware scientists to look up the word adware in the dictionary, and then once they've confirmed that the Dash is adware, we could cite them in the article?

The reason for my wacky hypotheticals is to illustrate how strange I find this whole WP:RS issue. Figuring out which pieces of software fall within the category "adware" is not empirical particle physics - it's a simple matter of applying a widely used definition. Any reliable secondary sources which state that the Dash is adware would just be applying the dictionary definition.

While the definition of adware is unambiguous, the definition of Ubuntu is too fuzzy for us to use the phrase "Ubuntu is adware" - I'll concede that. But I think it's straightforward to state that adware is integrated into the default user interface of Ubuntu Desktop Edition - Canonical has made the whole Super-Search-for-Anything pretty central to the Unity Experience in this release. I've amended my suggestion about what should appear in the introduction with your criticisms in mind Svennig:

The October 2012 release of Ubuntu 12.10 Quantal Quetzal marked a shift in the business model for Ubuntu's main developer, Canonical Ltd. With the integration of adware 1 2 into Unity 3 4 5 6 7 8, the default user interface of Ubuntu Desktop edition, Canonical expanded its business operations from it's traditional customer support services into contextual advertising. This shift was met with some controversy 9 10 among the Ubuntu community, with some members asserting that the integration of adware into Ubuntu was "somewhat tasteless" 11 and a violation of privacy. 12

Let me explain the references:

1 is a link to Mark Shuttleworth's blog where he explains how the Dash works:

. . .

The Home lens will show you local things like apps and music, as it always has, as well as results from Amazon.

. . .

What this means is that when a user wants to to access their local music collection just say, or some application, or some document they're working on, their search query goes to Amazon and then the Dash returns a bunch of targeted advertisements. Search for your local Britney Spears songs and a bunch of Britney Spears ads will appear. The Dash is the default UI, in other words integrated adware by default.

2 is a link to a blog post that introduces the "Online Shopping Feature" which states:

. . .

Now, on the face of it, the idea of shopping results appearing in a pool of app launchers sounds scary, needless and tacked-on. But the implementation of it is, thankfully, graceful.

. . .

Again this explains how adware is integrated into the default UI.

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are screenshots of what happens when a person uses the Unity Dash interface - this shows how the adware is integrated.

9 is Paul Tagliamonte's unhappy blog post, cited to support the word "controversy". 10 is an Ubuntu bug report launched against the package "unity-lens-shopping" entitled "Default behavior of Ubuntu's primary interface is to try to sell me things". The user writes:

I'm so furious that I've been mentioning to people for years that I prefer Ubuntu, and that they might, as a result, think that I condone this....

I just installed Quantal in a virtual machine, ran Unity just long enough to switch back to the Gnome Classic UI. As I was trying to pull up the package manager, I typed in "packages", and got a screen full of CDs to buy.

I'm told that removing the unity-lens-shopping package fixes this. In my very strong opinion, this package needs to not be installed by default.

I've never seriously considered giving up on Ubuntu before, but this is so far from okay.

This is cited to support the word "controversy".

11 is an Ubuntu bug report launched against the package "unity-lens-shopping" in which a user states:

. . .

This means that regular searches for local applications and files are transmitted to a remote server, which I believe breaks an expectation of privacy. It also seems somewhat tasteless for my operating system to be advertising things I might want to buy.

. . .

This is cited to support the phrase "somewhat tasteless".

12 is an Ubuntu bug report launched against the package "unity-lens-shopping" entitled "Direct data leaking to Amazon". This is cited to support the phrase "violation of privacy".

124.168.142.245 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Blogs, forums and bug tracking systems are not reliable secondary sources and can't really be used to source anything contentious or controversial like the kind of thing we are discussing here. We need better quality references. This article is good-article status and needs to remain that way. Elizium23 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I hereby invoke WP:LETITGO, and I'm going to get that cup of tea :). I've made my points (and I praise your dedication in ignoring them) and can only hope they provide useful information that allows others to come to a conclusion on the matter. Svennig (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm.

I guess I can't really say anything more. The source of this problem lies outside the scope of *wiki*. It was my mistake to try and solve it from within this project. I had a lot of fun though! *smile*

124.168.182.94 (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I am going to be WP:BOLD and move forward here as outlined below. My reasoning is, I think we have had a a) number of once-off opinions or dug-in positions (e.g. 124.168.182.94), b) two voices genuinely interested in reasoned discussion and compromise with the interests of Wikipedia quality at heart, which were initially in opposition but have found some common ground through good-faith discussion (myself and svennig) and c) another voice which is consistently obstructive and unhelpful, appears to operate only on the basis of assumed bad faith, and sadly must be disregarded in the interests of the progress of the encyclopedia. (That the user page of this person proudly displays so many feathers in caps and fingers in pies really concerns me, I must admit. How widespread is the damage?) I would rather have more than two people in category (b) but there we have it. On balance, I think the best thing to do is as follows: first I will create a new entry, software advertising, with a view to giving a proper history and context to the rendering of advertising in software, in desktop apps, mobile apps and web apps. Included in this will be some discussion of the terms "advertising-supported software" and "adware". I think once this is done, it will become obvious that adware should be merged with and become subordinate to this entry - but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Once that entry is in place I will link to it in place of advertising in the introduction of Ubuntu (operating system), and I will quote attributed notable opinions (only) of adware status in the Reception section, linked to adware.--Russell E (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per many of the reasons above. Seriously, is Craigslist or Wikipedia adware? No. All of them are donation-run free projects. I've yet to see an ad in Ubuntu, so it fails as adware by definition. • Jesse V.^(talk) 22:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not really comparable. Wikipedia does not have advertisements, and both of your examples are websites, not software of any kind. I'm not saying Ubuntu is adware or should be called such, but your comparison isn't really a compelling argument, and your personal experience with the software is also not a compelling argument. - Sudo Ghost 23:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Pro ‘Adware’. Ubuntu is the product of the commercial business Canonical. By default in the current Ubuntu version Canonical places product offerings for Amazon to generate revenue. This is pretty much the definition of adware. (Adware is not malware, even though some here confuse these.) —KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that wikipedia's own adware page includes the Malware template, which places it under "Malware for profit". The article doesn't do a good job of differentiating between "good" and "evil" uses of such a business model, merely stating something about information security (which has nothing to do with its entry in the Malware template) Svennig (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Svennig has the right ideas and excellent wording. I will support anything along these lines that goes into the article. Elizium23 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I have nothing direct or indirect to do with the product, though I would not hesitate to use it instead of MS if it could seamlessly support a couple of products that I cannot do without. It is not clear why there should be such religious passion on the adware point, because there is nothing about adware as such that deserves vituperation. It is not as though Ubuntu were spamware, crammed down unwilling throats or up unwilling nostrils. It is not alleged freeware that one is inveigled into downloading GB by GB, only afterwards discovering that it expires after n days or after n launchings, or so presented that it takes half an hour of research to find out how to download without getting unwanted payware with it. It is not even nagware that needs shutting up every few times you start it up. However, if even such ads as it does present make your pacemaker stutter, suit yourself; go off and enjoy your infarct and don't mind me. However, apart from being ungracious and misleading, to paint Ubuntu unreservedly as "adware", would amount to an unwarranted implication of WP POV, unless the text includes a balanced discussion of the major pros and cons in a clinically disinterested manner. This would be peripheral to the primary subject matter and best included in another article on adware in its various manifestations. In the Ubuntu article it would be so much wasted space. But suit yourselves... JonRichfield (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful comment. --haha169 (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

FOSS

Now someone wants to remove references to free and open source software from the lede. This is appalling. There is nothing about an advertising supported revenue model that conflicts with FOSS. Free software is freely distributed (as in libre, not free as in beer) with a permissive license that permits redistribution and modification. Ubuntu still has such a license. Open-source software is merely software that is distributed with the source code intact and whole. Ubuntu is still distributed this way. Nothing in 12.10 release disqualifies Ubuntu from being FOSS. If you want to assert that, you will need to provide reliable secondary sources that assert that Ubuntu has lost its status as FOSS. Otherwise it remains so, as countless sources describe it this way. Elizium23 (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. They are mostly ungrammatical, too. I am about to revert them.--Russell E (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC - Consensus?

I think we may have reached a rough consensus that we may only use the word "adware" (for now at least) as an attributed opinion. In anticipation of this I am about to uncomment and expand the text previously commented out of the Critical Reception section. --Russell E (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2012 (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.