Wikipedia:Peer review/Ubuntu (Linux distribution)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ubuntu (Linux distribution)[edit]

  • The plan is for this to become a Featured Article some day soon. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article. Done (for the umpteenth time) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.


In general all footnote should be after the punctuation. This is a very common mistake in the article (and makes it really annoying to read!).
While this seems to be a matter of preference (and in my field, the convention seems to be as I had them), I've obliged on this occasion. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph "It is released roughly every six months, more frequently than Debian", is released the right word. I know that there is a new release (n.) ie version, but would update be more correct. Released implies that something new is being distributed
Yes. Release is correct. New set of CDs every six months. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In “History and development process”, I can't understand the first paragraph (what is a "temporary fork of the Debian Linux project" - how was it meant to be temporary, what is different from what they did then to what they do now). The second paragraph is not about the history and should be moved. The third paragraph does not adequately explain the relationship between the Ubuntu Foundation, Canonical Ltd., and whoever it was (is?) who is actually making ubuntu.
No. The second paragraph is about the development process. It makes sense to give a joint treatment of history and development process. Many other things have been tried and didn't work for the article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in “features” the sentence alternate between being overly technical (how does using the sudo tool make ubuntu more usable!?!?) and trival ("Ubuntu comes with the pre-installed software Openoffice.." what distro doesn't have preinstalled software!). “It is stated on the Ubuntu home page….” Should be change to “Ubuntu try to give support in local languagues…” and have the homepage as a source. “all releases of ubuntu will be provided at no cost” should be changed to the present tense. Is the wallpaper changer a feature? Maybe I don’t know
Usability features sudo and ubiquity are now explained in some detail. Unfortunately, sudo cannot be explained without being technical. The language support sentence you mention is actually redundant and has now been removed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Ubuntu Backports bold? Perhaps a wikilink was intended Done. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is the section “Availability of proprietary software” necessary, aren’t these issues common in all linux distros? It should not have to be repeated for every one
Yes, the issues are the same. The solutions differ. The latter is significant here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see which part of the section you're talking about now. I've taken that out and added it to Linux, which is probably more appropriate. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in “Developmental/Unstable Branch” isn’t ubuntu already based on debian unstable?
Thanks for pointing that out. I suspect that Ubuntu was originally branched off Sid, but now maintains its own unstable branch. I'll need to confirm this. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We (the Ubuntu development team) rebase the development branch of Ubuntu (regular Ubuntu, not Grumpy) on Debian unstable every six months. When Grumpy exists, it's likely to be based off upstream CVS/Subversion/etc., not Debian unstable; packaging files will likely come from Debian unstable via whatever the current Ubuntu development branch is, but that's just a guess as none of this has been settled yet. --Colin Watson 11:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should cite sources on that (though I can't help some of the clearest sources being announcements from me): https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2004-November/001188.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2005-May/007591.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2005-November/000009.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2006-July/000164.html http://merges.ubuntu.com/ --Colin Watson 11:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why is there no section on criticism, I understand that debian is not such a fan?Jon513 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This section does exist; it was subsumed into the "History and development process" section since this improved flow and removed redundancy within the article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Debian is not a single entity, and doesn't have a single opinion on nearly anything you'd care to name other than its core objectives. There are elements of both criticism and favour towards Ubuntu within Debian. --Colin Watson 11:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't having both cats "Debian-based distributions" and "Linux distributions" a bit redundent in the article, considering the Ubuntu cat is contained within the other two categories?--ZeWrestler Talk 19:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Done. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome --ZeWrestler Talk 13:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ubuntu_(Linux_distribution)/archive1&oldid=1138566464"