Talk:Ubuntu version history/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Retitling

This page isn't really about history, as it includes future releases. Maybe it should be just "Ubuntu Releases"?

Jayen Ashar (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right... Or maybe "Timeline of Ubuntu releases"? or "List of Ubuntu releases"? SF007 (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I moved this page to "List of Ubuntu releases" in accordance with the Wikipedia Naming Policy. Themagicmanfromtrent (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice move. SF007 (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed Tainted Information on Jaunty

I took out the information about Jaunty, which contained the impossible statement that Jaunty will have Pidgin 2.6, which does not exist, among the list of software packages. This was the only one with a citation, and whatever the actual citation meant, it didn't mean what it said. The whole bit about Jaunty should be audited closely to make sure it is accurate. Do not just restore the deletion, check it. Papna (talk) 06:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation restored, section re-deleted. Papna (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I have restored the information on the kernel and ext3/ext4 which is reliably referenced. - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Jaunty desktop

Is it ok to add a screenshot of the default desktop for jaunty now? I know all is subject to change, but it would give something more to the section for now. - Old Marcus (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as long as it is not the same as the Intrepid one that was used during earlier testing! - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I see you have added it! Looks kinda dull after Hardy and Intrepid, doesn't it? - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I quite like it. Dull, perhaps, but the reddishness added to it helps the colour a lot. I always thought Intrepid's desktop looked like a coffee stain. - Old Marcus (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
That is what I first thought when I saw Intrepid's desktop, too - "coffee stain". I guess I was expecting Jaunty's desktop to look more like this. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I changed the link to a version I uploaded on Wikipedia, rather than Wikimedia Commons. The licensing is the same as previous screenshots, and I have nominated the wikimedia copy for deletion. - Old Marcus (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Table of Ubuntu releases

(This proposition was made on Ubuntu talk page)

I've proposed to clean up table to look like this: Ubuntu Releases table mockup.

Current table has, in My opinion, way too much details (especially all those refs and dates converted into links).

(and yes, i know that 6.06 is still supported - it's only a mockup. :) ) KrzysztofKlimonda (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your cleaned up table looks good to me! - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll second that. The color coded "supported/not support/etc" looks good. The only thing I would change is order. I'd have future released first and it would go back in history all the way to Warty Warthog.-- Larr¥ 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Some Ubuntu LTS versions keep the same name and number while undergoing significant kernel upgrades. For example, Precise Pangolin 12.04 used these kernel versions: 3.2, 3.5, 3.8, 3.11, 3.13. The List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Table_of_versions doesn't currently reflect this fact. This Ask Ubuntu answer does reflect that fact (e.g. 12.04 is listed as "3.2 or newer"), and the comments below it may be useful. Open4D (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to keep changing these, it would be fine to list the kernel at release. For that matter, see WP:NOTCHANGELOG. I'd be happy just removing that column entirely as too much detail for an encyclopedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Seperate articles for each version

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but shouldn't the different versions have their own article? This works fine for Microsoft, with Windows XP and Vista for example. Quispiam (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be possible to split each version into a seperate article, but each one would need to have a lot more text added to it to justify that. I would suggest if you think that is worthwhile then expand each one here within this article and then, when they are each much longer, propose a split into separate articles. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay :) Well, I supposed so, but since I'm new to the article I wanted to check if there had been discussion on this before. But I'll try. Quispiam (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a worthwhile project to look at. The key limitation is going to be finding sufficient and detailed references to support adding the text! - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to this idea? This article does need a major cleanup, but I'm not sure how to do it. Perhaps articles could be written for each LTS release and a general re-organization for the article. [mad pierrot][t c] 00:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there were no objections voiced, but no one took the project on, either! - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Ahunt, I would like to try and fix up this article, but I need help. I'm much more of a wikignome, and I've never been much of a writer. Do you have any suggestions and would you like to help me? [mad pierrot][t c] 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well let's see what sort of concept you have for it and then see what we can do. There have been only two LTS releases so far, perhaps we could expand those sections within the article and then see if they get big enough to split off as separate articles. There is a pretty good article on them all at The road to Jaunty: a look back at Ubuntu's history (already referenced in the article as ref #8) and also some Feisty and earlier history in Full Circle Issue 0. - Ahunt (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The main concern I have is that I don't think the differences between consecutive releases are that significant. I could be wrong, but I think that each version is in a weird kind of limbo where they are notable enough that the current article seems insufficient, but that separate articles about each release might just end up being stubs. So I think we should start by expanding each section as you suggest with more information on packages, improvements over previous releases, criticisms, and reviews. I think that's a good start. [mad pierrot][t c] 17:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've started a merger discussion at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)#Merger proposal with list of releases page. I just don't think the differences between each version is great enough to merit this page, or merit a page for each release.  [ mad pierrot ]  18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

9.10 Will not have a new default theme

I read on Softpedia that Ubuntu 9.10 won't have a new theme. Softpedia quoted the information from Shuttleworth I believe. Is Softpedia a reliable source?

Can't find the article right now, but when I do I'll link it. --Old Marcus (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Link: Ubuntu 9.10 Alpha 2 Released --Old Marcus (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Softpedia is considered a reliable source. SF007 (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Good catch on that announcement! I have incorporated it in the article text along with the ref. - Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Glad to be of service. :) --Old Marcus (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

9.10 expected packages

I've added citations to the expected packages section and removed the [citation needed] tag. The launchpad pages are a little hard to read, but you can see the versions that are currently being developed/used. --Mad Pierrot (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those refs - Wikipedia is only as good as the refs cited!! - Ahunt (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple future release redirects

Recently, redirect pages have been created for potential future releases of Ubuntu (10.04 10.10 11.04 11.10 12.04 12.10 13.04 13.10). I was about to do an RFD, but I figured I would bring it up here first. I think most, if not all, of these redirect pages should be deleted for now. With no official announcement from Canonical about releases after Karmic, it is very premature to have all these pages. Any information out there is pure speculation at this point. Ubuntu might not be actively developed within the next few years, unlikely but possible. It is equivalent to creating a redirect page for Windows 9+. Perhaps 10.04 could redirect to future releases or something, but the rest are in my opinion very good candidates for deletion. I should mention that I don't know how to group multiple pages into a single deletion discussion. [mad pierrot][t c] 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

RFD is in progress here.  [ mad pierrot ]  18:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Pidgin still published in Karmic, still should be included in table

Pidgin is 2.6.1 in Karmic publishing, so it should still be included, maybe have it italicized. 24.241.229.136 (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Not being installed by default is not a reason for striking it out, since MySQL and PHP aren't either. --Mernen (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of packages table

This table has now been removed twice as unsourced and trivia. Before it is added back in please provide a ref for the numbers and explain why you think it is not trivia and is worthwhile adding to this article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the table was one of the most useful piece of data of the article. You could see, at once, for example what version of python a certain ubuntu release uses, so you could tell whether your application will work or not (python 3 is not backward compatible); or you could see whether you would get libreoffice or openoffice, and so a lot of useful information). Sources could be obtained straight from http://packages.ubuntu.com/ . Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, it's a source of useful information, both for quick reference and for full source of data. The table offered such a very good service. If your problem is the lack of sources, I can take the job of citing everything from the Ubuntu site as a source. But please, let us (users!) get the table back.Dgutson (talk)
I think you are confusing this discussion for one below. This discussion was about a very small table with an unsourced list of how many packages were available. The issue that I think you are referring to is the version table discussed belwo. It was removed because it ran afoul of WP:NOTCHANGELOG which specifically prohibits this sort of trivia. It may be useful, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, any more than, say, recipes do. - Ahunt (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Version timeline

The version timeline has Windows 7's release date as roughly Jan-Feb 2010: whereas it was released on July 22, 2009 to PC builders or October 22, 2009 to the general public. Vista is shown correctly (using the general public availability), as are roughly Windows XP SP2 and SP3.

Apart from the Windows 7 correction can it be made clear also that for Windows (and possibly Mac, if applicable) that it is the general public release date that is used and not the RTM date too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.134.154 (talk)

Actually if you look carefully at the chart Template:Timeline Ubuntu Linux and check the coding for it you will find that the Win7 release is set at 22 October 2009. All the dates on the chart for all OS are for general public releases. - Ahunt (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm mostly the guy that updates that template so if there is a problem, feel free to send me a message. Altonbr (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Version history of common programs

This table in the article includes version histories of some applications. Earlier in June User:Altonbr added the VLC media player to this table. As much as I like VLC, it has never been an application included on the Ubuntu ISO CD, although it has been available in the repositories. There are lots of other applications that are not on the Ubuntu ISO CD, but are in the repositories, like Epiphany, Avidemux, Gparted, etc. I can't see any reason to include VLC here. Does anyone think it should be retained here? - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should take off the table applications that haven't ever been in the default installation. Empathy should be included in the table. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Let's leave this a few more days and see if there are any other thoughts on this from other editors. - Ahunt (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, if it's not shipped on the ISO we don't need to include it. --Falcorian (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay it has now been a week since this was proposed, so I think we have a consensus to remove software that isn't included with the CD ISO, which I will now do. - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to chime in so late, but I agree with the move to remove programs that are not on the main desktop ISO, although I am sad to see the server programs go. It's really meant to be a sample of programs that are included in Ubuntu and what version they were at during each release and by no means was meant to be exhaustive.Altonbr (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Should there be new columns for Unity and Software Center versions and corresponding numbers? I think that these two are more essential, discussed and controversial parts of the current Ubuntu os than are optional software such as GIMP, Pidgin or PiTiVi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.186.30 (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This table is far to big and unwieldy as it as and borders on WP:TRIVIA. As this table runs afoul of WP:NOTCHANGELOG I think the whole thing should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with including only the "core" components (we could discuss what could be considered core; e.g., kernel version), but I disagree with completely removing the table; no offense intended, but if still holding opinion, please involve another wikipedia editor besides Ahunt to take the decision.Dgutson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion that resulted in removing the table is below at #Version history of common programs. As discussed there, there are a number of problems with it, in particular it didn't comply with the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTCHANGELOG, which says "Wikipedia articles are not:...Changelogs or release notes. An article about a product should include a history of its development and major improvements; creating a list of all changes to software or hardware between each minor version violates other precepts of this policy." We have a consensus to remove it but you can start a new discussion to try to gain consensus to put it back in, but you will have to show how it complies with policy. - 12:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

10.07 uncited?

I was just reading the whole page, and checking out the sources to read more. I noticed that the cite for 10.07 leads to nowhere (or actually, somrthing). I didn't know that there was going to be a 10.07, and when I Googled it, I couldn't find any places I found to be "reputable" enough. 71.236.158.14 (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake in adding the ref. Thanks for pointing it out - it is now fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I was wondering about it. 71.236.158.14 (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention

So what happens after they get to "Zany Zebra" version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.177.99 (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

All explained at Development Code Names. - Ahunt (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I am delisting the GA nomination for this, because it is a list and thus not eligible, according to WP:WIAGA. Good luck at WP:FLC. Magic♪piano 22:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of version 10.07

First off, this article pertains to Ubuntu Desktop releases, not other variants of the Ubuntu system. It is also not a new Ubuntu release, but rather a new interface for netbooks on top of Ubuntu Desktop version 10.04. The Ubuntu_(operating_system) article does not mention 10.07 and the Ubuntu_Netbook_Edition lists the release as 10.04. In addition when downloading the netbook version on the Ubuntu Website, the filename is ubuntu-10.04-netbook-i386.iso

--66.216.166.154 (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is "List of Ubuntu releases" not "List of Ubuntu desktop releases". I've restored it since it's been approved by canonical. Shouldn't we be adding all releases rather than playing "one of these things is not like the other" and eliminating the ones that don't match the others? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Although it needs a citation based on your comments. Since it can't be downloaded or found on ubuntu.com and it's specific to ARM processors, it may need to be removed anyhow. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I have uncommented the section on 10.07. The ref is very clear that this was announced and so the text is correct in that regard. What is not clear is that it was actually released or not. It could have been that it was delayed and rolled into 10.10, but as the text says it was "announced". - Ahunt (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been searching the internet for more information on 10.07. The 5 sentence blog post referenced in the 10.07 section seems to be only thing everyone is pointing to as the source, there is no official announcement from Canonical on a 10.7 release. There is no reference to 10.07 on http://releases.ubuntu.com/, http://www.markshuttleworth.com/, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/, and http://www.canonical.com/. These are the credible sources I trust on the issue, not what a single sales rep says to a blogger at a computer show. This is what is known as Vaporware. --70.15.112.168 (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have come to the same conclusion and have removed it completely. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, agreed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It was probably someone getting confused about 10.04.1 Scott Ritchie (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Libre office instead of Open Office?

just so you know, 11.04 is considering Libre office instead of OpenOffice, "Banshee will become 11.04 default media player providing it overcomes disk space issues and Libre Office is also being considered as a replacement to Open Office. How do you feel about the changes?" source? 96.42.44.73 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That isn't a citable source, but this is Banshee becomes Ubuntu 11.04 default music player. I'll add it. - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
OpenOffice has now been replaced by libreoffice in Natty. I guess we just need to find a reliable source which backs this up. Papa November (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this official source covers it. I'll add it in. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing there that indicates that it's the official replacement for OpenOffice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I am starting to see some sources of confusion here! I'll fix it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The table should not be split into two columns for OpenOffice.org & Libre Office. One follows the schema of release of the other & conveniently replaces the other in the order of that schema and consequent release of Ubuntu. A "/" diving the two in the top of column should be sufficient. Gatmaster (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

False and Misleading Claims about Canonical's Support Policy

This statement which is found on the main page:

Ubuntu 4.10 (Warty Warthog), released on 20 October 2004, was Canonical's first release of Ubuntu, building upon Debian GNU/Linux with plans for a new release every six months and eighteen months of support thereafter.

Contradicts this statement:

For normal 18-month releases, we will only accept updates to the kernel for 3-4 months after release. At this point we consider the in-development release to be stable enough for testing, and the primary target for fixing bugs.

Found in Kernel security and update policy for post-release trees

What kind of "18 month support" really means "3-4 month support for kernel bugs"? False and misleading. Case in point? Consider LP #579276 where a bug which causes KVM VM guest's networking to crash under load did not get accepted into Karmic. This is despite the SRU team begin supplied with the necessary patch on March 3, 2011. All they had to do was accept a patch and they did not. Clearly any claims about "18 months of support" are not supported by this evidence. 140.147.222.3 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, I take it you're "nutznboltz" in Launchpad then? If you have a reliable source contesting Canonical's support for stable releases, then please go ahead and add the information to the Wikipedia article. Alternatively, if this is an expression of a personal grievance about your patch for bug #579276 not being considered for an SRU in Karmic, then you'd be better off taking it up with the kernel team! Papa November (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what this is about but if kernel support is only four months, then we could modify the article to reflect that, with a WP:RS. All other portions are supported for 18 months and so that cannot change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
PN is quite right, to add this you need to cite a reliable reference that states this, not just your interpretation of this, as explained in WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Wikipedia is not the place to bring grievances, but the place to quote reliable sources who have stated those as issues. - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hardy Heron end of life date

There seems to be a bit of an edit war going on over when Ubuntu 8.04 desktop support expires. Having gone through reams of the usual totally disorganized Ubuntu documentation all I have found is the same information: April 2011, with no specific date given. As can be seen on that page, Canonical has done this before, sometimes they give an exact date, as in the case of Jaunty Jackalope (23 October 2010) and sometimes they don't, like with Feisty Fawn (just October 2008). In the absence of any firm date I think we have no choice but to go with the end of April for 8.04's end of life. - Ahunt (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not disagreeing that support won't end in April, but it's not clear whether it's the start or end of April. Until a clear announcement is made, and hence we have a reference, we can't assume. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It is definitely April, but we have to assume that it is the end, not any other arbitrary date, unless someone can find an official ref that I missed. - Ahunt (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that it ended on 12th May 2011. I found this source: [[1]].Pcwiz11 (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, I have fixed the date and included that ref! - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu 11.4 Picture

I noticed that the caption for the 11.4 screenshot is noted as being from Alpha, but clicking on the link says it's a beta screenshot. Could someone verify and correct this inconsistancy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.47.157.124 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The caption is correct as the screen shot was taken before the beta was released, despite what the photo file details say. It will be replaced with a screenshot from the stable soon anyway! - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

I think it's time that we split the ubuntu releases page into separate articles.Ubuntu061896 (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It does not need splitting into individual release articles. Most are just one paragraph long, too short for a stand alone article each and, because most are old releases that are no longer supported or in use, it is unlikely that they will grow in size. - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment Why is this being discussed here as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ubuntu releases? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Oneiric Ocelot to be released on October 13, *not* October 24

As per the official Oneiric Release Schedule on the Ubuntu Wiki, Ubuntu 11.10 will be released on October 13 and there has previously been an error in the opening lines of that section as far as that is concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenny Strawn (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Ubuntu 11.04.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ubuntu 11.04.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ubuntu 11.04.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Version history of common programs

Should there be new columns for Unity and Software Center versions and corresponding numbers? I think that these two are more essential, discussed and controversial parts of the current Ubuntu os than are optional software such as GIMP, Pidgin or PiTiVi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.186.30 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

As I added above to this same question: I disagree. This table is far to big and unwieldy as it as and borders on WP:TRIVIA. As this table runs afoul of WP:NOTCHANGELOG I think the whole thing should be removed. Let's let this discussion run for the usual week and see if anyone else supports retaining the table. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay since there have been no objections to this proposal, as per WP:SILENCE I will remove the table. - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Since silence is the weakest form, I'll add a voice. I liked the table but it was a change log and selective at best. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice to see at least the linux kernel version in each release added back in some fashion. I thought this was useful information to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.217 (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
That could be added as text to the individual releases. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the kernel version should be added, probably to the remaining table. This would also match the release table for Fedora. - Giantsloar (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding wikilinks to animals

This is original research, pure and simple. It is the editor's personal interpretation of what the animal being used is referring to, as per "I went with honey badger because it is famous in Africa." No source says that this 5.10 is referring specifically to a honey badger, and no source was provided, as such it is unverified and original research. - SudoGhost 03:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You have as a reference on the very page u are "correcting". And for Honey Badger

  1. It is a BADGER
  2. Hmm, company from Africa and badger from Africa. What a surprise.
  3. Reference 8 in this article
  4. Relax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverWolf7 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
What you just said is the very definition of WP:OR, especially because the reference that you're mentioning does not support what you're saying. (Also, the company is not from Africa.) - SudoGhost 03:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not from Africa? Canonical was founded in South Africa

(plus, modern science and Ubuntu developers know animal names) :)

SilverWolf7 (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The reference you linked says badger. Just badger. Full stop. Nowhere, not once, does it say honey badger. You're taking inaccurate assumptions and applying it to a source. This is original research. Plus, the wikilink to Canonical doesn't say anything about Canonical being founded in South Africa. The only thing remotely African about Canonical is Mark Shuttleworth being from South Africa, Canonical was founded in the United Kingdom. Before making inaccurate comments and insert things into articles while asking others to read things, take the time to read them yourself. - SudoGhost 04:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
In short, the names are code names and are unrelated to the animals. This was already discussed on the main operating system article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


  1. Honey Badger
  • If you bothered to look, you would find that link is now going to (just)Badger
  • You (again) deleted OTHER animals (including the ones that other users edited months ago), delete just what you KNOW is wrong
  1. Code names are unrelated to animals
  • I see this is first time you read about Ubuntu. Second part (of the name) is animal
  • Read Ref 8. It cleary shows it is animal (and there are even links to that animals)
  • Ibix release have Ibix as background and Narwhal have Narwhal as background
  • Ubunutu named them, not me
  1. Ubuntu is not from Africa
  • Yes, Canonical headquarters are in London, but it is common practise to have offices around the world, but we all know where it started.
  • And it started with Mark Shuttleworth, founder of the Ubuntu project
  • Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning 'humanity to others'.
  • When it jumped over Knoppix it was known as Linux from Africa
  • And all this "Africa" is now not related to official animal names

SilverWolf7 (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

For your honey badger comment, that exactly what I was saying the entire time, it did not and does not say anything about a honey badger. "if you had bothered to look", I hope you're not serious. - SudoGhost 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Honey Badger is behind us, we are now talking about you removing other names
(Considering how you handled Wubi edit, I dont see you are contributing constructively. Why you want to fight?)
SilverWolf7 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You've been warned about personal attacks by another editor. Before you throw around accusations of not "contributing constructively", check the editing history beforehand. "If you had bothered to look", you'd see that another editor reverted you, and provided an explanation above. - 17:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
-----------

And to finish this here is what founder have to say:
...Balancing all of those options, I think we have just the right mix in our designated mascot for 12.04 LTS. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Precise Pangolin.

Now, I’ve recently spent a few hours tracking a pangolin through the Kalahari. I can vouch for their precision – there wasn’t an ant hill in the valley that he missed. Their scales are a wonder of detail and quite the fashion statement. I can also vouch for their toughness; pangolin’s regularly survive encounters with lions. All in all, a perfect fit. There’s no sassier character, and no more cheerful digger, anywhere in those desert plains. If you want a plucky partner, the pangolin’s your match. Let’s pack light for a wonderful adventure together. SilverWolf7 (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

...what does that have to do with anything? - SudoGhost 17:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I think we can end this discussion before it gets any worse. Essentially one editor wants to add links to animal articles to this article, but there is a consensus here not to do that. Article content is decided by consensus, so case closed. - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ahunt

What consenus? There is just one guy with Honey Badger problem. (And I reverted Honey Badger to Badger)

The other just entered at end saying that it is not named after animals. Mark Shuttleworth say it is.

All I did was adding small link so people can see what animal is mascot for distro. SilverWolf7 (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This consensus. - SudoGhost 18:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but:

  • that is another article. It is about Ubuntu in general. This is about release and it would be nice to se distro mascot
  • it is not the same as mine edit
  • it is 2 years old
  • and it is same mistake that there are no animals in names (Mark Shuttleworth and Ubunutu say there is)

SilverWolf7 (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is a WP:SPLIT of that one, and the discussion is about the same topic, wikilinking the animal names. While consensus can change, that doesn't appear to be the case here. Being inspired to name something after an animal does not mean that the project name needs to be wikilinked to that animal, any more than Windows should be wikilinked as "Microsoft Windows". - SudoGhost 18:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
It may be another article but it's a similar subject and the same principle applies. Its age is not at all relevant. You'll notice that Mac OS code names are not linked to their respective articles, Android OS code names, Windows code names. None of them. This is the way it is across Wikipedia. They don't need to be linked because they code name does not describe the version nor does it enhance the understanding of the codebase. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

But there is explanation why it is named that way. This have nothing with code. If you dont like my link place, lets work out another. SilverWolf7 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a pretty firm consensus to not do this. Speaking of animals, please refer to WP:DEADHORSE. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we dont have a consensus. I see that other people had same idea, but you just deleted their edits. And even you Ahunt have mascot description/link. Up do this point there is not one good argument why you dont like explanation of (one of) Ubunutu Trademarks. SilverWolf7 (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The animals are not trademarks, they're code names, nothing more. And we do have consensus. That has been displayed above several times. I suspect that by working together you expect us to link to adjectives and animals that are completely unrelated to the product. --19:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
If you can show how there's a link to the following terms, it would be reasonable to add them, in the same way that there are links to X.Org, GNOME, and Canonical Ltd.
  • badger, breezy, dapper, drake, edgy, eft, fawn, feisty, gibbon, gutsy, hardy, hedgehog, heron, hoary, ibex, intrepid, jackalope, jaunty, karmic, koala, lucid, lynx, maverick, meerkat, narwhal, natty, ocelot, oneiric, pangolin, precise, quantal, quetzal, warthog, and warty
You're not asking us to link to the numbers used in the version. It's odd that you would request links to one method of distinguishing versions but not another. We could easily link to 4.10 for instance. However, since the words are simply an alliterative device to distinguish one release from the next, much as the version numbers are, there's no need to link the words any more than there is reason to link the numbers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


As shown here there is a reason for any animal and their symbolism. https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2008-September/000481.html

SilverWolf7 (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there any other straws at which you would like to grasp? There are "reasons" for every product's code name, and they're usually applied after the code name has been chosen or while selecting. In this instance, the code names ascend alphabetically and so they're bound by that convention and have to select an adjective and animal to match the upcoming release letter. The rest is nonsense. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


I think it is sad how boring this is. You have it from founder of Ubuntu project and still u continue, without giving any good reason. From link above, symbolism by Mark Shuttleworth:

  • There are some specific goals that we need to meet in Jaunty. One of

them is boot time. We want Ubuntu to boot as fast as possible - both in the standard case, and especially when it is being tailored to a specific device. The Jackalope is known for being so fast that it's extremely hard to catch, and breeds only when lightning flashes .Let's see if we can make booting or resuming Ubuntu blindingly quick.

  • Another goal is the the blurring of web services and desktop applications. "Is it a deer? Is it a bunny?

Or is it a weblication - a desktop application that seamlessly integrates the web!" This hare has legs - and horns - and we'll be exploring it in much more detail for Jaunty.
SilverWolf7 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I read: "future plans" and "code name". That's all that's necessary. There's nothing else in there that convinces me that there is a link between the code names and the alliterations that they have chosen. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, this sort of edit is acceptable, since a reason is given to the actual animal. Linking the code names just so that they're linked is not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ubuntu Timeline

Is the Ubuntu Timeline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ubuntu_releases#Version_timeline) down? All Wikipedia generated timelines appear down for me, in all my browsers. Altonbr (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Something is definitively broken over at Template:Timeline Ubuntu Linux, as none of the present or past versions will display. Since this doesn't seem to be as a result of edits, I suspect it is as a result of a software upgrade in the MediaWiki Software that Wikipedia is run on; the old "system breaking update". Hopefully it will get fixed as I am not even sure where to report this. - Ahunt (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think from 12.10 onwards, the normal releases will be supported for full 2 years instead of just 18 months. I'm not sure if that is extended or standard support, though, and I also don't know how to change the timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.11.12 (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that shows two years? This specifically shows 18 months for normal releases from 12.10 and on. - Ahunt (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup (of development issues)

I boldly deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Ubuntu_releases&diff=555077525&oldid=555076259 Does/did(?) anyone care about development issues/how many alphas were issued before release? WP:NOTCHANGELOG, but this isn't even that. I hesitate to throw out discussions on Wubi that didn't materialize. Not agressive enough? Comp.arch (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Quote heavy?

Isn't subsection Ubuntu 13.10 (Saucy Salamander) too quote-heavy? --Mortense (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't think so, but then I added the two quotes. Both are critical of the release and the Smart Scopes feature in particular and were added to provide some balance to what other wise tends to be positive receptions of most Ubuntu releases. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

There are quite a large number of citations to OMGUbuntu.co.uk in this article. In fact there are 30 citations. In particular, the section about release 14.4 has 7 citations from OMG Ubuntu for just that one paragraph. Additionly there is a quote from the author of OMG Ubuntu in the Ubuntu 13.10 section. I have to question this source as it seems to be a blog written principally by just one author, working alone with no editorial oversight or control. It is exactly what WP:USERGENERATED says we shouldn't be relying on except is a few special cases. I don't think this article is a special case.

I notice in the history edit summaries that one user wrote "I think the Sneddon review should remina. It is a WP:RS and it is much more critical of the smart scopes than Ars Technica was." No it is not; OMG Ubuntu is one persons personal opinion. Before citing web pages, you need to click on the "about us" button and check just who you are citing.

Other dubious source in this article include:

  • webtrickz.com one man blogs are not reliable sources
  • ubuntuforums.org (user generated content without editor, generally forums are not reliable sources
  • webupd8.org one man blog
  • stgraber.org one man blog
  • bugs.launchpad.net forums are not reliable sources
  • desktoplinuxreviews.com might pass WP:RS because Jim Lynch is experienced in writing for many tech magazines but still is just a one man blog

Reliable alternative sources do exist. Ubuntu is notable enough to generate headlines in major publications. Where a better resource is available it should be used and the existing unreliable citations replaced with better sources.

Beyond the sources listed above, the article relies very heavily on primary sources e.g. ubuntu.org, markshuttleworth.com, and canonical.com. Note that WP:OR says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."

-- Rincewind42 (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OMG and Lynch have been debated before on the reliable sources noticeboard and found to be acceptable. Lynch is widely published elsewhere in this subject area and meets the exclusion at WP:SPS for experts in the field. OMG Ubuntu is published by OHSO and has a small staff of writers and editorial oversight. Despite its often irreverent style they do seem to be as reliable as any source and don't shill for Canonical, often clashing with the company on issues. Because they are so focused on Ubuntu much of what they publish is only available there or sometimes in primary sources, making them a useful source. The other sources you note are mostly WP:SPS and really need backing up with WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Several editors have queried the reliability of OMG Ubuntu in addition to the RSN linked prior, there is Talk:Pitivi as well as users edit summaries in this article. You claim that OMG has a staff of writers and editorial oversight while OMG Ubuntu's About Us page says, "OMG! Ubuntu! is manned full-time by Joey-Elijah Sneddon, a 25 year old journalism graduate based in the UK. We're also supported by guest writers..." A guest writer is not a staff and a 25 year old graduate is not a experienced and reliable editor – especially not of articles for which he is also the author. The claim that it is published by OHSO is also odd because OHSO created by Mr Sneddon who is the principal writer of OMG Ubuntu and all the other OHSO titles. Oddly, at the sister site OMG Chrome the guest writers bio reads "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet..." that really does not look like a publication with strong editorial values. -- Rincewind42 (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no doubt it is a small operation, but their reports generally are thorough and correct. One of the problems with rejecting them is that because OMG Ubuntu covers Ubuntu issues relatively completely most other tech outlets have reduced coverage of Ubuntu, meaning that there often are no alternative sources any more for most information. - Ahunt (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
That is the very definition of an unreliable source—a small outlet that publishes information that other sources don't include. There is no way to back up your claim that they are generally correct, because other sources don't include that content. That suggests that OMG often publish things that other reliable sources reject. Sounds like a dubious source to me. I reject your argument that other better sources can't be. Linux has many reliable main stream publishers producing magazines and newspapers but on and off-line. Ubuntu is a major Linux distro and is frequently discussed in these reliable sources. If information is given in OMG Ubuntu and can be collaborated in other reliable sources, then the other reliable source should be in the article instead of OMG Ubuntu. If OMG Ubuntu published information that cannot be backed up by better sources then that information is dubious and should be removed form this article. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Well as I said I disagree. Because they do such a thorough job covering Ubuntu issues, other publications have largely left the field to them to cover and moved into less well-covered aspects of Linux and free software and when they do cover Ubuntu it is in much less detail than OMG does. The back up for the claim that they are generally correct is from later, primary sources. Because OMG has often been the only outlet at the previous Ubuntu conferences full-time they often broke stories first that later were the subject of public statements and press releases from Canonical and the other 'buntu flavour projects, that proved correct. Originally they had a collection of about six writers with Sneddon providing oversight, but the number of writers seems to have dwindled in the past year or so. I wouldn't discount someone's credibility on the basis of being 25 years old. As profiled in Full Circle Magazine, some of the Ubuntu software package maintainers are under 15 and they do very good work. I don't think you have to be as old as me to be a good journalist. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think that other publications have left the field at all. OMG Ubuntu is far form the biggest Ubuntu related site by any metric and many other dedicated Ubuntu fan sites exist as well as many Linux publications covering the topic as well as the general computing press and even frequently main stream press. Your claim that OMG Ubuntu is often the first to post news is irrelevant. Being first is not a metric of reliability. Including in Wikipedia quality sources not quick sources. Plus the access date for the references on this article are often weeks or months after the publication date, making freshness irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a news outlet. We are quite happy to wait for a press releases and reliable third party sources to be written and published rather that take the word of a blogger who tweeted while at a conference. Sneddons age is of significance. Experience is required to be a competent editor and to be knowledgeable on the topic at hand. The reason Jim Lynch might pass WP:SPS is that he has that that knowledge and experience—Sneddon does not as illustrated by that lack of other publications syndicating his work. -- Rincewind42 (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that they are usually quick to report Ubuntu developments is significant. Because they cover events quickly, other media don't bother, having been "scooped" by OMG and knowing that it is widely read by people interested in Ubuntu-related subjects. If you look at the general tech media coverage of Ubuntu before OMG launched you will find much more coverage there, dropping off after they started up. My point is simply if you discount them it will be hard to cover this subject adequately because the the dearth of other sources that are addressing the subject in this depth. There are a number of active editors watching this page, I think it is significant that you don't seem to be gaining any consensus for your contention. The last time this was brought up at the RS noticeboard there was no consensus there either to not use this source. Unless some other editors support your proposal to not use this source I think all we have here is "no consensus" and this discussion has probably run its course. - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it is significant that you don't seem to be gaining any consensus for your contention that OMG Ubuntu is a reliable source. You haven't any support today and you haven't had any support in the past either. On the contrary, there is support for my position. I am not the first person to complain that OMG Ubuntu is not a reliable source. As detailed above already, several other editors have stated that OMG Ubuntu is not a reliable source as defined for Wikipedia. Your position is held solely by you. Looking through the history of this article and many other articles, I see only Ahunt claiming OMG Ubuntu is reliable but many in various other places, editors have argued that it is not reliable and you dismissed them. I have already stated that OMG Ubuntu has not got a major market share of Ubuntu related stories on the net. It has not displaced other titles. Sneddon is a insignificant blogger with no actual computing qualifications. The quotations of articles from OMG Ubuntu on this article and many other articles give undue weight to the opinion of one minor blogger and should be removed. The references can and should be replaced with reliable sources and where other sources cannot be found, the fact must be marked a dubious or removed. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I get that you don't like this source, but you need to gain a consensus to remove it. You haven't convinced me that this source is unreliable or not worth using and now you are down to throwing insults about the source around. You haven't been able to show a single incidence where information they printed was unreliable. When this was brought up at the RS noticeboard there was no consensus there either to not use this source. Why are none of the other editors on this page supporting your position to remove this ref? They seem to want to not bother getting involved. So far there is no consensus to delete this source and we are also getting into WP:DEADHORSE territory here as well. If no one else agrees with you here then it is time to drop it and move along. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the discussion IS here, I would like to hijack it a bit.. I've been wandering about the general issue (maybe should discuss elsewhere..). There are four cases:

  1. Publication is a "reliable source" and so is the article (or referenced bit).
  2. Publication is a "reliable source but the article (or referenced bit) or is wrong.
  3. Publication is not a "reliable source" but the article (or referenced bit) is correct
  4. Publication is not a "reliable source" and the article (or referenced bit) is also wrong.

Nr.1 is ideal and we presume those publishers do not do nr.2. For technical matters especially, let's say buisnessinsider.com or forbes.com might be right (or wrong). I would use them if correct, but would also like to at least edit out if wrong.

Nr.4 at least happens frequently in a typical forum, or random blog (but some are often ok).

Where does OMG Ubuntu happen to be? Most of the time at least.

Now also consider Bruce Schneier, very reliable (about security at least). Has a blog (nr. 3). Not even a journalist :) But top person in his field.

Now for a twist see: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/unbreakable_enc.html

Would you exclude his blog or that article? What about the journalistic (assuming, could have been the BBC) articles he references:

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-unbreakable-codes-nature.html

http://www.gizmag.com/human-biology-unbreakable-encryption/31504/

Would these article be ok, and those publications in general get a free pass? Shouldn't at least the truth (if uncontroversial) get a say? Back to the specific case of OMG Ubuntu, I see mostly obviously uncontroversial true info there, that anyone can check out, this is in (the User Interface) of Ubuntu. Why bother excluding those or ALL of the articles? This is not rocket science.. comp.arch (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That ref was taken to RS noticeboard a while ago and there was no consensus that it was not an RS. It is a commercial site, not a hobbyist blog, has proven reliable and is widely read and relied upon by Ubuntu users. User:Rincewind42 seems to not like it and has been removing it from as many articles as he can. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. Your answer indicated that a source is either reliable or not, that is judged per entity; not per article. However once in a while they can be wrong (and "unreliable sources" right). It seems to me that "RS", are presumed to be right and the others not. That is a heuristic that is probably true. I wander what to do when it breaks down for RS. And what would you think about the Schneier blog. It is not commercial. Not sure you meant to imply it's a requirement or relevant. I would think let's say newspapers could be deemed "RS" in general except for science. And Schneier reliable when speaking about security but not in general. The article of his is however on an interesting mix of security and physics. Then I'm not sure what do to in that case. I would presume usually that he is right, and in this case. But he is not a physicist and I can't judge this specific case what I would to (not that I need to). comp.arch (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@comp.arch the answer to your questions is described in detail at Reliable source, Original research and Neutral point of view. Taking your examples:
  1. The reliable source is correct so use its information and cite it in the references.
  2. How do you know the reliable source is incorrect? Perhaps because other reliable sources give different information. Sourcing articles is often about balancing sources with different viewpoints to get a neutral point of view. It may be appropriate to put both view points in the article and allow the viewer to decide. If many sources say one thing and only one source says differently, then it may be correct to omit that single source in that case. However, each case must be examined one by one. Just because Einstein got his cosmological constant wrong doesn't mean I disregard all of Einstein's work.
  3. If it not a reliable source, how do you know it is correct. Perhaps because you have a second better source that agrees with the unreliable one. In that case, quote the second better source not the first.
  4. If it is not reliable and know it is incorrect then obviously you don't use it in a Wikipedia article
  5. You didn't give a No.5 but there is one: Publication is not a "reliable source" and you don't know if it is right or wrong. In this case you still don't use it. If it doesn't qualify as a reliable source then adding it to a Wikipedia article gives either the false impression that the article is well sourced when it is not or the impression that Wikipedia is unreliable because it allows such sources to be referenced.
OMG! Ubuntu! falls mostly into No.3, sometimes No.4 and frequently No.5. Where it is No.3, replace with the better source. Where it is No.4 replace with the better source. Where it is No.5, consider whether to leave it be and tag with {{Better source|reason=|date=April 2014}} or remove it and add {{Citation needed|reason=your explanation here|date=April 2014}}
@Ahunt you continue to miss-represent the situation. Multiple users have criticized OMG Ubuntu, only Ahunt defends it. The RS noticeboard did not give a green light to add OMG Ubuntu everywhere. In fact the RS noticeboard contains only the nominating complaint and Ahunt's counter, with nobody else coming in on either side. So it means nothing at all other than proving my point that I am not alone in complaining about OMG Ubuntu.
I am not solely targeting OMG Ubuntu. I listed 6 (six) blogs and forums that are going to get replaced on this article. It is Ahunt who has the OMG Ubuntu obsession. The edit history shows that Ahunt added all the OMG Ubuntu links to this article and Ahunt has been the sole defender of them despite other users comments. That is causing me to react accordingly and scrutinise OMG in much more detail than I had otherwise intended. I don't need any further consensus to replace them with better quality sources as such a consensus already exists as stated twice above. Rincewind42 (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I defend OMG Ubuntu for some things. I just have not spoken up about it because the other editor is capable of using the source correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Which supports my contention that you have no consensus to remove these. As at RS there was no consensus that OMG is not a reliable source. either. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding nr.5, we also have this problem potentially, if we do not know if something falls into nr.1 or nr.2. In that case we do not include if we think it's nr.2, if we do not know we might include. Then if it's nr.2, does something different happen than if it's nr.4? What I'm trying to say is I do not care much about labeling a source reliable or not. At least in this case. Not saying you they are always right, but can you point me something included where OMG Ubuntu is wrong that has be referenced? comp.arch (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@comp.arch Reliability is not based on a judgement of being correct, it is to do with the style and format of the publication. Two sources might say exactly the same thing, but one will more reliable than the other. For example: "Dolly the sheep, the first cloned animal died" coulde be backed up by several sources.

All the above tell the same story and all of them are correct, but which would you choose for the source of a Wikipedia artilce. I think it is clear that the Nature Magazine is the reliable source as defined at WP:RS where as the others are self published or user generated content as described at WP:SELFPUBLISH. By using the reliable source, Wikipedia inherits that reliability. By using unreliable sources, Wikipedia inherits a reputation (which it already has) of being unreliable.

Looking at our article, take one claim, for example the article says that in Ubuntu 11.10 "Mozilla Thunderbird has replaced the Evolution email client" we have several possible source:

All these sources say the same thing. The are all correct that Thunderbird is the default email app in 11.10. However, one is user generated content and two are self published blogs. That leaves us with Softpedia and ExtremeTech both of which are reliable sources as defined at WP:RS and also notable publications which have their own wikipedia pages. Why shouldn't that reference be changed to ExtremeTech.com. Rincewind42 (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed text

The following text has just been removed as no source was given:

Ubuntu 9.04 was the first version to support ARMv7.

Samsara 00:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

One important upgrade "behind the scenes" in Vivid...

is the migration from the WHOLE base system from libc6 2.19 to 2.21. (Neither Trusty nor Utopic ever made such libc6 change; minor version number was always the same.) As most of you tech-savvy guys will know, libc6 is the one and all for Linux. If you break it, almost nothing works (except vi, granted (lol)). So this is another reason why eye-candy fanbois cannot perceive too much of the 14.10-to-15.04 change from the outside. -andy 2.242.42.124 (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If you have a ref we can cite, this can be added. - Ahunt (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm...this might get difficult. I've been running Vivid since its first beta and these are my personal observations from my log files. And you can imagine, I was pretty worried that everything will go well, as a manual libc6 migration is not for the faint of heart. APT helps a lot in recent times...wish we had it back then. -andy 2.242.42.124 (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Personal observations come under original research, to add this we need a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You're talking to me as if I was a rookie who had his first month of Wikipedia experience, LOL. But you're right, o. c.: this would be OR. Anyways, what about this ref: https://launchpad.net/glibc/+packages ? Says 2.19-10ubuntu2.3 was for Utopic (14.10), and 2.21-0ubuntu4 is for Vivid (15.04, current). -andy 2.242.155.70 (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Well that is one disadvantage of editing under an IP address, you have no editing history, so I don't know how experienced you are here. The ref shows that libc was changed, but not what the implications of that move are, so it is start. Is there any help in this at C standard library? - Ahunt (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid there isn't. :( -andy 2.242.196.45 (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I guess we can list that libc was changed as a start and hope someone can find a ref that explains the implications of that. - Ahunt (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on List of Ubuntu releases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

ESM in version table?

12.04 continues to be supported for Advantage customers until 2019. I added this fact in the section for the release, but not sure how to add it to the table, since LTS support ended, but ESM continues. 88.193.200.225 (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Change of date format

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ubuntu_version_history&diff=next&oldid=390077148 92.227.230.108 (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

DMY is the correct format as Ubuntu is run by Canonical (company) and they are located in South Africa and use that date format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
English Wikipedia is not a Canonical enterprise. 92.227.230.108 (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that means. I'm going to ignore you until you make a concrete expectation of what you'd like to see happen and after you acknowledge reading MOS:TIES and MOS:DATETIES on MOS:DATEFORMAT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Canonical, Ltd. is now based in UK, but DMY format still applies there, so here, per MOS. No need to wait on German IP with only 2 edits to date (2018-06-08, as preferred in Germany since day after 04.30.1996 ;). But again per MOS:DATEFORMAT the Table of versions can - and should - retain YYYY-MM-DD for sortability and happy congruence with Canonical's semantic versioning scheme of YY-MM. On to next crisis. - Paulscrawl (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Screenshots

Please to keep adding file manger window on screenshots, so it would show some example of UI, rather than just a background picture. Elk Salmon (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Elk Salmon: What do you mean by "file manager"? Do you mean Nautilus (or its eventual replacement)? I do not see many of those at the commons category. Could you please link to an example? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz:, @PantheraLeo1359531: Standard file manager that every version has. Similar to screenshots of earlier versions. There is no point of screenshot showing just the background picture. File manager window on screenshot would show changes in stock UI. Elk Salmon (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
But there are many older screenshots without a file manager inside the screenshot. I also don't know if the version of the file manager corresponds with the version of the OS itself (when you can install different version on the same OS, then it might be less useful). I think it is more a matter of taste, which differs. --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I added some screenshots that might fit:
  • File manager
    File manager
  • File manager
    File manager
  • Software overview
    Software overview
  • Software overview
    Software overview
Greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree it is a matter of taste - personally I prefer "clean" shots that show the wallpaper evolution over time, rather than cluttering the shot up with the file manager. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ubuntu based on Debian (version history)

https://askubuntu.com/questions/445487/what-debian-version-are-the-different-ubuntu-versions-based-on 

Ubuntu      |    Debian          -version number
18.04  bionic     buster  / sid   - 10
17.10  artful     stretch / sid   - 9
17.04  zesty      stretch / sid
16.10  yakkety    stretch / sid
16.04  xenial     stretch / sid
15.10  wily       jessie  / sid   - 8
15.04  vivid      jessie  / sid
14.10  utopic     jessie  / sid
14.04  trusty     jessie  / sid
13.10  saucy      wheezy  / sid   - 7
13.04  raring     wheezy  / sid
12.10  quantal    wheezy  / sid
12.04  precise    wheezy  / sid
11.10  oneiric    wheezy  / sid
11.04  natty      squeeze / sid   - 6
10.10  maverick   squeeze / sid
10.04  lucid      squeeze / sid

please complete the listing... , thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.15.239.92 (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's important to list the corresponding Debian version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree, there are so many changes made to put out Ubuntu, that this would seem to be WP:TRIVIA at best. - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
My comment was a bit terse so let me clarify. I'm not saying it shouldn't be there or that it should be, I'm just trying to understand why it should be included.
I would lean toward your TRIVIA claim. Why stop at Debian? We don't list the kernel, which I think is more useful to record for encyclopedic reasons. Understanding why is key here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
If you look at the Ubuntu release schedule you will see that ubuntu automatically import packages from debian. Then, as explained in the main article, only the packages in main are actively handled by canonical, which, according to my estimation, are 10% of those from debian. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
There's not much automatic about it. Debian is already listed twice. Repeated mentions are unnecessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Error about Public support until 2028 for version 18.04

Current article says 2028-04, the source doesn't mention that it's public or not.

But the Version timeline below shows that it's Extended Security Maintenance. Which for the other versions isn't counted about public updated.

This source doesn't show more than 5 years of support https://www.ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle And actually doesn't even show the info about the extended support to 2028 that Mark Shuttleworth announced. Which is strange.

So are we sure enough that current date for end of public support (2028-04) is wrong? Or is that simply a confusion? Tuxayo (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The ref we have cited isn't clear on that. However these two official refs on ESM and releases make it clear that it is paid ESM support after the normal five years is up. I'll fix that in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

When Ubuntu 19.10 added to the tabel?

(Version timeline) Mis them. (195.35.231.195 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC))

Minor releases information/policy

Information about minor releases is generally missing and also what kind of policy Ubuntu follows. Tech201805 (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ubuntu_version_history/Archive_1&oldid=1137279657"