Talk:Ubuntu (Linux distribution)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Skip to Table of Contents Skip to Table of Contents
Tux the penguin This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, an attempt to comprehensively cover Linux and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Former featured article This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.
To-do list for Ubuntu (Linux distribution): edit · history · watch · refresh
  • More detail about the development process
    • Who gets a say
    • Describe the release schedule (i.e. knots, beta, release candidates)
    • give the major improvements contained in each major release (c.f. Fedora Core)
Main Page trophy Ubuntu (Linux distribution) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 5, 2006.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Engtech article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.
Peer review Ubuntu (Linux distribution) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


Archive

Archives

1 2 3 4


Contents

[edit] Dates format

At the request of Chris Cunningham, I am opening a discussion about date format x yy zzzz used to represent zzzz-yy-x which is used several times in the article. It appears, if not invalid, ambiguous to me, so I replaced it by the ISO format. If you would like more discussion, please precise.--Chealer 07:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous. This has been discussed to exhaustion with you on the Advanced Packaging Tool discussion page.

The date for Dapper is wrong. Dapper was out in June, not Aug. I could not figure out how to edit the opening though. Could someone fix? I think it was June 14th, but I know it was June. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.32.68.211 (talk • contribs).

It (6.06) was released on 1st June 2006. There was a maintenance release (6.06.1) in August 2006. Afaik shipit does ship 6.06.1. Secretlondon 00:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent reverts

I've got a mediation case open with the recent editor for undiscussed and unwarranted reverts on Advanced Packaging Tool. I believe this is more of the same, as the summary used recently makes no indication that it rolls back a number of disputed changes made since his last edit. As these have not been discussed (and contravene policy in one case) I'm reverting to Lisamh's version with the following notes:

  • "relevant to the Christian faith" is less chatty than "geared trowards Christians";
  • Windows Media is only supported in non-free in Debian, and Ubuntu's Multiverse policies aren't a 1:1 with non-free's;
  • "GNOME" is still occasionally taken to expand to mean "GNU Network Object Model Environment", so duplicating "environment" would be a case of RAS Syndrome;
  • "Notes and references" reads better than "References and notes".

Please discuss these changes further if you'd like them re-added. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 08:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an Ubuntu Christian Edition - it's not a hoax and has been very controversial on the forums. However it's not an official derivative so I'm not sure how much attention we need to give it. Secretlondon 20:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Christian Edition might be worth listing. Is it the only unofficial edition? If it is listed it should definitely be listed as an unofficial version.--roger6106 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There are loads of them - there is even more than one Christian Ubuntu - Ichthux seems to have actual Ubuntu developers involved. Secretlondon 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to a recent edit summary, "first expand that article, and then list it here", I'd like to point out that completeness (or even existence!) of the linked article is not a criterion for linking. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Twinxor t 20:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That said, there seems to have been considerably more discussion of UCE than actual adoption of it. Two forum threads and a dozen tech news posts generated from same do not necessarily mean that it holds particular value to the article. While I didn't agree with removing it (and indeed rewrote its inclusion to make it fit better when it was originally added), I would certainly suggest that it is more productive to work on UCE's own article for the time being than lobbying the inclusion of the current stab on this talk page. Chris Cunningham 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I think if we include Ubuntu Christian Edition we have to include Ichthux which is based on Kubuntu, has Ubuntu members involved in it and has had mentions in Ubuntu community marketing materials. As both articles are a couple of sentences working on them would be more productive. There are also 101 distros which are derived from Ubuntu - we don't need to give promotional space to all of them. Secretlondon 22:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kubuntu and Xubuntu

I think a large enough number of people use ubuntu to refer to the ubuntu family of distros (esp kubuntu but also Xubntu and Edubuntu) as well as the specific gnome version that the intro should have something along the lines of "ubuntu can also be used to refer to the ubuntu family of distributions including kubuntu, edubuntu and Xubuntu" or something similar. What do others think? The bellman 06:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this would make the article any clearer. Chris Cunningham 13:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


The Hyperlinks to the variants may not have been present when you made your comment but I think they are sufficient to help folks learn their way around the Ubuntu variants. What I feel would be helpful are clear links to pages that provide a comparative analysis of each variant and how to load and boot two or more of these so people can decide for themselves. shanger 20:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the link to the "5.10" release announcement is wrong

I did not immediately find the correct link, but the current link ("Ubuntu 5.10 announcement", https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2005-April/000023.html) is actually to the 5.04 release announcement

[edit] Free software?

I think we'll run into trouble with this, as Debian fanboys and others will continue to take snipes at such broad claims in the article, even if made in a template. To my mind, the field in the template is designed for operating systems where the license situation is crystal clear, e.g. one or two licenses used, not more. Most Linux distributions consist of a whole landscape of licenses that people have various feelings about. The template has at least improved in so far as one field that was meant to give an even vaguer view of the licensing rationale, has now been omitted. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the infobox really should give an overview. Can't we say "FOSS with proprietary components" or something? Twinxor t 10:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thing is, Ubuntu itself is under a free software licence (insofar as that all code which makes its way into the distribution written by Canonical is free software). I don't think it helps the infobox to get too technical on the intricacies of Multiverse and Restricted, nor do I think shelving it entirely helps (by having an internal link to the licensing section). I'd rather have a slightly-too-simple answer in the infobox than no answer at all. As for the fanboys, nothing ever stops the fanboys. :) There's a guy trying to claim Mac OS X is free software right now. Chris Cunningham 10:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Then the question remains whether the link should point to Free software or Free software license. The latter is strictly more appropriate, but is a less developed article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the correct solution is to link to the current article and improve it (by removing all the advocacy) to the point where the licences article can be re-merged with it. Gah, it constantly amazes me that articles on fruit flies get to GA status after four anonymous editors are done with them, while core articles on the free software movement remain incoherent after years of editing... Chris Cunningham
That problem is specific to the free software movement, whose adherents are obsessive critics and can never agree on anything. Not to mention individualism, the occasional anarchistic tendencies, and the fact that moaning is simply fun and puts the blame on other people. Few people hate compromises with such passion. It's just that FOSS smugness gets dented when somebody disagrees over which license is best. Battle time.
When (if?) Apple start making laptops with a decent build quality (no toxic plastics, no overheating, exploding batteries and temperature-deformed chassis, no staining and electrocution, decent battery life, moderate weight, thermal paste applied correctly, and an OS with seamless suspend to disk) I won't be looking back. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
but but but, the HURD will be ready by then! ;) Chris Cunningham 12:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Column ref "layout bug"

Go on then, screenshots would be nice. Chris Cunningham 13:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Better still, I'll see if I can file a bug report, or find the bug in the database. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Filed here: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7622 Let's wait and see if it gets marked as duplicate before I upload any screenshots. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh, yeah, it's just the URL wrapping? That's really the browser's responsibility. In Mozilla browsers this is the infamous "soft hyphens" bug. Is it okay to put the columns back if I go and wrap all those URLs? Chris Cunningham 15:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
These have now been fixed.
Nice work. I have to be honest - I just don't see the value of wrapping it into two columns when the entries already fill the lines (as they do). It doesn't save space, just increases visual clutter. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It might not save space on low resolutions, but on larger monitors it cuts quite a bit of vertical space. Mind if I put it back now? Chris Cunningham 16:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Try not to argue on the basis of your own experience. Remember Tobias Conradi arguing that the article had to be catted a certain way because his browsing experience would be affected otherwise? If it's just about your screen, then a better way to address the problem may be by keeping your own copy of the article somewhere. I operate at widths from 1366 to 1680 and I'm not pressing for the article to be changed so it looks good when viewed widescreen. Linguistics research shows that your reading speed slows down as lines get longer because your "eyes" can't easily find the beginning of the next line. So there is good reason not to even want to view Wikipedia at wide resolutions. Think One Laptop per Child and feel that by keeping single columns, you're doing something for the children of the world. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, isn't that an argument for splitting columns? Shortes lines? What am I to do, un-maximise my window when reading Wikipedia? If it doesn't negatively impact people on other browsers / low resolutions (which it doesn't), what's the problem? Chris Cunningham 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It does. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for reverting

I hadn't read the reference properly. --Guinnog 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's concentrate on stable software

I removed the following passage and recommend concentrating on stable versions of software, rather then writing something about each beta and release candidate. An encyclopedia should be more about the big picture.

After three test CD images (called "knots"), the beta CD image was released on the official Ubuntu site on 29th September.[1] An RC image was released on 19th October.

If anybody wants to write about this, Wikinews may be the more appropriate place.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. While it could be covered in Wikinews, it is improtant to note upcoming releases and the current stage of development. I think that the sentence should be kept, but I'll see what others think first. 0L1 - User - Talk - Contribs - 10:08 24 2006 (UTC)
Eft pre-releases are really just footnotes to software that's still under development. They don't merit noting, in my opinion. Twinxor t 11:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
0L1, let me be clear on this. I'm quite happy for the article to describe the development process. In fact, I think that is one issue on which the article could be more detailed and clearer. But that should be written in general terms and go in the "history and development" section, rather than specific comments on particular releases that are going to be outdated within weeks. One of the featured article criteria is stability, meaning the content should not change too much from week to week. You may know that this article is currently under featured article review. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need every knot either. Secretlondon 00:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section

Removed section:

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS was released including GNOME 2.14.0, Mozilla Firefox 1.5.0.3, OpenOffice.org 2.0.2, X.Org Server 7.0, GCC 4.0.3, and version 2.6.15 of the Linux kernel. Several packages were upgraded for the first maintenance release on 10 August 2006.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edgy features in release section

The release is set to include a new System V init daemon replacement called Upstart, as well as improvements to the memory usage of applications such as Evolution and Nautilus and an increase in the speed of system boot up and application launch compared to version 6.06.

If/when the decision has been made that these features will be retained in future versions, this content should be moved to the "features" section. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

These are permanent features, as Edgy is now the official release. Twinxor t 03:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming (?). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess if you're going to be super-careful, it's not clear that every change in Edgy is being carried over to Feisty. But looking at the main features, I don't think most of them are too radical. Firefox, GNOME, and Evolution get version bumps. F-Spot and Tomboy are now installed by default; because they extend the desktop capabilities of Ubuntu I think they're unlikely to be removed. I can't really imagine a scenario where Upstart gets thrown out, given that it's custom software specifically developed to improve Ubuntu. And whatever "Proactive security features" refers to, security is a no-brainer for carrying forward.
I recall writing some of the original material about Edgy, based on Shuttleworth's April announcement. But he mentioned a lot of advanced features that didn't really come to pass (Xen, Xgl, etc. are not in main), and neither did the accompanying "shakiness, or outright bumpiness". So I think discussion of Edgy's stability (compared to Dapper, at least) is best kept to a footnote. Moreover, let's keep in mind that Edgy is the current release (or at least a first-class release, and the newest release) of Ubuntu. Its features are Ubuntu's features. Twinxor t 20:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
And please stop this edit war on the article; before some major editing consult here, on the talk page. That would make the things easier. --Emx 21:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It's far to early to be writing about the feature set for feisty.. Secretlondon 09:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot

Edgy is released few days ago so I've made a screenshot, and uploaded it to Commons at Edgy_with_apps.png. It is 800x600 and shows the same things that the Samsara's Dapper_with_apps.jpg contained. --Emx 07:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice job. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks ;) Also, I've changed updated the screenshots on all the wikis that have the Ubuntu article, so those don't show Dapper anymore. --Emx 10:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Efty criticism

Some hefty criticism was posted on Slashdot today. It contains a bunch of links to stories that explain upgrade problems to 6.10 (isn't it so that the official name is 6.10, and not "edgy eft", which is supposed to be somewhat internal, by the way?) Since this article doesn't have a criticism section yet (and it really should, seen as how it aims to be a featured article), I think this will be useful. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 10:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It was featured article. I agree that there should be criticism section, but that should be verifiable. I also heard that there were some minor problems from upgrading Dapper to Edgy using network repositories or alternate CD, though. 6.10 or Edgy Eft - it's all the same, though Edgy Eft (or Edgy) is just a code name. --Emx 10:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It's still a featured article while the review is going on. I don't know where you get the idea, Msikma, that all featured articles need to have a criticism section. Write sections that are about something, not just sections that are something. If you have some aspect that you feel isn't covered, bring it up, but don't just go, "oh, there should be a criticism section, 'cause like, I don't know". Windows 2000 is a featured article without any explicit criticism section. It does have a section on security flaws, however - see what I mean? Tell us what the criticisms are, e.g. there could be a section "upgrade problems". We should keep in mind that Efty is one of two releases that are currently supported, so its contribution to the article should perhaps be somewhat more than half. Alternatively we could decide to have a separate article on the LTS release and any future LTS ones. However, there is no precedent of this in, e.g. Red Hat Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux or SUSE Linux articles; Mac OS X, on the other hand, does have them. It all depends on how much material we can maintain to a reasonable standard. Even if you were to create a section about the upgrade problems, though, I don't think slashdot or the forum are reliable sources on this, not least because people always encounter problems on upgrade, with any product. Let us know when you can find something more substantial. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. I think that those "criticisms" and similar things should not be in the article, because most of them are about Edgy Eft release which has not LTS (Long Term Support) in duration of 3 years on desktop, like Dapper Drake. Edgy Eft is just upgraded Dapper which should be used by more experienced users. Dapper Drake is almost perfect (for me), despite I use Edgy too. If there would be enough material about Edgy Eft, we can make an article; why not? --Emx 16:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've inserted appropriate links into the article. If you want to start the new branch articles, please do so at Ubuntu v6.06 LTS and Ubuntu v6.10. It's a pleasure working with you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that Dapper and Edgy are arguably notable enough to get their own articles, I'm not sure why it's necessary at this point. Do we have enough material for each release article to stand alone, without duplicating much of the parent article? Maybe we should just create release subsections in this article. Twinxor t 22:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
So long as we can keep the article well-organised. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The criticism has been countered by developers who point out that most of the upgrade problems have been caused by people with unofficial packages. See eg [1] and [2] Secretlondon 05:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Has there been any official statement that Edgy shouldn't be used in production? Shuttleworth suggested as much, but I haven't seen it anywhere else. Twinxor t 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No there hasn't. Note that you can purchase support for edgy from Canonical, and that it is supported for as long as the pre-Dapper releases were. dsas 15:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
On the point of a 'criticism' section. Why should it be a specific section dedicated to it? Why shouldn't any criticism be weaved throughout the article where each criticism is relevant? Splitting the article into a 'pro' and 'anti' style damages readbility, attracks fanboys and trolls and can lead to POV forks.-Localzuk(talk) 09:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly my point, thank you! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
People on IRC are saying that the Dapper is better than Edgy because it has LTS and many more things; i have some IRC logs directly from #ubuntu if you want - those are the statements about Edgy, Twinxor. --Emx 13:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at our policy on verifiability. Sources have to be peer reviewed or high quality journalistic sources .-Localzuk(talk) 13:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I know that, maybe the things that Seveas said on IRC could be important? He's doing very much for Ubuntu and is one of the operators on the channel. --Emx 14:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Chatlogs can't really be referenced, so I think they're out. In my draft section, I propose a paragraph mentioning the reports of upgrade problems, which can be substantiated somewhat. But we've had some discussion about this, and it isn't clear that there's a lot of substantial criticism going around, so we want to be careful not to blow it out of proportion -- see false balance. Twinxor t 15:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Releases section

I made a temporary subpage with subsections for the versions. It's not done yet (needs references, for one), but this is how I think the section should look, now that there are two "live" versions of Ubuntu. Does this look reasonable? Twinxor t 02:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There are more than two "live" versions of Ubuntu as they come out every 6 months. Breezy Badger is still supported, and Hoary Hedgehog will be until the end of Oct 06. Secretlondon 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I suppose we could do a series of them, as in Mac OS X#Timeline of Apple Macintosh operating systems. There wouldn't be much to go on for each section, though - the releases did not have many major changes. Twinxor t 05:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's no other objections, I plan to merge this into the main article soon. Twinxor t 14:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Twinxor t 00:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding to the Features section

Right, one criticism of the article is that it doesn't really say that much about what makes Ubuntu special. The whole point of it. Is this a good summary to start with?

  • Based on Debian.
  • Up to date: Six-month releases and long term support.
  • sudo, gnome: other applications which are set up differently in Ubuntu to other distros for usability reasons.
  • new add-remove, upstart, usplash, ubiquity; Ubuntu-specific apps which make Linux easier to use.
  • very great focus on hardware working first time for everyone.
  • community organisation: community managers, open BOF sessions.

Anything else? I think the key "features" section should encompass all of that. It's dwarfed by minutae about release dates and repo categorisation just now. Chris Cunningham 13:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say that the key things that make Ubuntu special are its community and its drive for user friendliness and gui harmony.-Localzuk(talk) 13:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. I would add something about localization and loco teams, like almost every country has Ubuntu LoCo team. Again, use Ubuntu wiki for more information. --Emx 18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
From "About Ubuntu" (/usr/share/gnome/help/about-ubuntu/en_CA/about-ubuntu.xml):
"Based on Debian, one of the most widely acclaimed, technologically advanced, and well-supported distributions, Ubuntu aims to create a distribution that provides an up-to-date and coherent Linux system for desktop and server computing. Ubuntu includes a number of carefully selected packages from the Debian distribution and retains its powerful package management system which allows easy installation and clean removal of programs. Unlike most distributions that ship with a large amount of software that may or may not be of use, Ubuntu's list of packages is reduced to a number of important applications of high quality."
We might mention that compared to other distros, Ubuntu's default install is a lot smaller (versus a DVD or 15 CDs), and the main repository is more carefully pruned, avoiding using more than one with the same basic function. Twinxor t 05:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now had a first stab at this. Yeah, there are too many headers, but at least it isn't dwarfed by minutae about old releases or whatever now. Chris Cunningham 11:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subheadings

I think that there shouldn't be so many subheadings, since they are short and such subheadings are not needed. --Emx 07:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Chris Cunningham 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

Why wasn't the featured article review posted on this page so other editors could see it too? I'm a bit worried that a page can be reviewed for a month and only a couple of editors who take part in editing it seem to know about it... -Localzuk(talk) 23:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It was posted. The FAR template was at the top of this talk page. Joelito (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Someone put it in the middle of the rest until 5 days ago when it was moved. Must have slipped me by.-Localzuk(talk) 00:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various changes

I changed a lot of the article's wording, removed some of the cruft and fixed some grammatical errors. I won't deny that slashdot.org is a good source for Edgy upgrade troubles, but I don't believe it needs to be elaborated to such length within the actual article, just a mention with a reference is sufficient. Also, I could be wrong, but hasn't support for Grumpy and Hoary lapsed? If not, feel free to revert that, but I thought it was silly to have those under the heading of "Currently Supported Releases", even if they were tagged as obsolete. Another thing: corporations, companies and organizations should be referred to as one thing, as they refer to one group of people rather than many people, so I fixed many references to Canonical and Google as plural. The structure of the article itself is still a bit messy and unorganized and the response section still needs expansion, but I've done all I can for today. Feel free to help out, of course. Issue with anything else I changed can be taken here, or just change things back if you'd like. I ask that you post your reasons here, though, just out of courtesy. Thanks! -mushroom 04:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that you know what you're doing? Because I've seen a lot of copyeditors pass by who think they're doing a useful job, but were completely oblivious to having changed the meaning of sentences. For starters, Grumpy isn't an actual release - you mean Warty. On the copyediting, can you tell me what the difference is between "Ubuntu packages are generally based on packages from Debian's unstable set of packages." and "Ubuntu packages are generally drawn from from Debian's unstable repository"? Can you relate this to the statement "A lot has been said about the fact that Debian is not binary-compatible with Ubuntu." [3]? If you can't, then I'd suggest a revert wiki-wiki. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, yeah, Warty. Sorry, heh. As for the paragraph dealing with package compatibility, I was trying to decrease the amount of times the word "package" is repeated, but you bring up a good point, so I've changed it again. -mushroom 05:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You missed one use of the plural for companies. This is actually the right way to do it in UK English, and I've fought against piecemeal changes to it so far, but you were pretty diligent about it so the least-resistance path is oviously to go with the singular version now. Thanks for working on this, nice to see not everyone has been intimidated off of editing it yet. Chris Cunningham 13:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/b/u/Talk%7EUbuntu_%28Linux_distribution%29_8289.html"