Talk:Xubuntu

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

Unofficial project[edit]

I'm making the article avoid saying that Ubuntu Lite is an "unofficial project" again. If Ubuntu Lite is unofficial in some way, please mention in what perspective when readding the information.--Chealer 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and Edubuntu are all official sub projects of the Ubuntu Project, and so are sponsored by Canonical Ltd. (see Ubuntu (Linux distribution) and Ubuntu.com). Ubuntu Lite is an independent project that uses Ubuntu as a base. It is therefore unofficial. The Ubuntu and Ubuntu Lite wiki pages already say this without needing explanation. There was a sentence on how Ubuntu Lite was unofficial because it was not sponsored by Canonical, but it was removed (by you).LadyPhi 15:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu designed for idiots[edit]

I removed the comment stating

The reason the Ubuntu project provides forks for every different Desktop Environment, even though you could easily do it yourself with apt-get and editing .xsession is because Ubuntu was desgned for idiots.

as it is POV and any criticism of ubuntu forking/seperating its desktop environment/versions should be targetted at the Ubuntu article. Xubuntu should not be criticised due to the decisions of its parent. -localzuk 21:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to mention vandalism reverts on the Talk page. However, I appreciate his humor, so having moved it here is appreciated :) --Chealer 02:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this was true back in 2005, but Debian does the same thing. http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/4.0_r4a/amd64/iso-cd/
Funny comment, anyway.--Noerrorsfound (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debian[edit]

I have removed the comment stating 'or Debian' as Ubuntu, and then Xubuntu are derivatives of Debian Sid and are no longer part of the debian tree. They are a seperate distrobution and as such comments such as that are not needed.-localzuk 22:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved sections[edit]

I moved the 2 following sections here. "Desktop CD" reads like an advertisement. "Alternate install CD" goes IMO into too much details. This content seems more appropriate for Xubuntu's website.--Chealer 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop CD[edit]

The Desktop CD is a combination of a Live CD and a normal install CD, it allows you to install Xubuntu normally or to run it without saving anything to your computer (Live CD). When using it as a Live CD, you can install it when started.

Alternate install CD[edit]

The Alternate install CD allows for more specialized installations, namely:

  • Creating pre-configured OEM systems
  • Setting up automated deployments
  • Upgrading from older installations without network access
  • LVM and/or RAID partitioning
  • Installing on systems with less than 128MB of RAM

Any Info on ShipIt?[edit]

This project seems relatively new, but I'm wondering if it's likely to be made available through ShipIt, like some of the other Ubuntu projects are. I'll keep a watch on the official site and see if any information is posted. Grendel 04:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this was the first official release, and is not available via ShipIt (neither is Kubuntu nor Edubuntu by the way).
Oh, okay. Maybe they'll provide it via ShipIt sometime later? By the way, Kubuntu is available through ShipIt. Although, only somewhat recently. I ordered a couple of CDs yesterday. I don't know about Edubuntu, though. Grendel 17:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no point, as you can have Ubuntu through shipit. After you have Ubuntu, just download Kubuntu, Xubuntu, or whatever it may be, through Synaptic. //Ae:æ 15:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There really is a point. Most people would rather skip those extra steps and install xubuntu directly. --Snarius 18:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All it takes is a couple of more steps. Plus, there is still not very much downloading.//Ae:æ 18:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kubuntu and Edubuntu have only been made available by shipit since the release of 6.06. They both started later than Ubuntu, but before Xubuntu, so you would expect Xubuntu to become available from shipit later than these. Raoul Harris 17:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My personal feeling is that there is more need for a Xubuntu Live CD than Kubuntu or Edubuntu - simply because Xubuntu is aimed at lower end machines which may not be able to adequately run the higher end OS packages. Regardless, I think the argument is moot because it's not really something to be covered here but on the Ubuntu forums. Kouros 12:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I ordered it off the Ubuntu web site but only recieved Ubuntu. They sent me 5 CD's, all the same. I prefer Xubuntu on my 533 MHz P3 IBM 300 PL 384 MB RAM, 19 GB Hard drive, CD/RW (4x), S3 Trio 64 Graphics, and Cirrus Logic Crystal Audio... as you can see that's fairly outdated yet works faster than Windows XP on my 1.8 GHz unit at work (many factors involved [network, start up apps, etc.])... I use Ubuntu on my 1GHz Athalon with 768 MB RAM on one hard drive (30 GB) and PC-BSD on the second (9GB)... Gnome runs fine on the more powerful machine. KDE running under PC-BSD runs great as well. User:Sargonious
Xubuntu is not sponsored by Canonical, only recognized as an "official" derivative. The user base is considered too small to be considered for ShipIt and thus that service will not be provided. --Vincent (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar Project[edit]

This paragraph has bad grammar, is rather unrelated and doesn't make much sense (in my opinion):

xUbuntu,an PC/Xbox enabled live distro made its way onto xbox linux a while back.While not being very fast on Xbox, it stays true to its ubuntu roots.There has also been some controversy over the xUbuntu choice of name as it conflicts with Xubuntu.The obvious thing that made xUbuntu famous was that typing in the terminal: 

# the shareef dont like it

produces an ASCII video of rock the casbah.Humurous and rousing.

If anyone can provide more information, this part should be moved onto a separate page.

IPA pronunciation?[edit]

Can someone explain the supposedly-IPA pronunciation "/ˈzùbúntú/"? I can't find "ù" or "ú" in the IPA charts. I would've expected something more like /zuˈbəntu/ or /zuˈbuntu/, but in any case it doesn't seem to be IPA as written. —Eric S. Smith 21:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly valid IPA, indicating tone. 68.48.168.53 23:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xubuntu.info - Gone?[edit]

What happened to xubuntu.info? It doesn't seem to be around anymore. Jorophose 01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


They're back, yay !~ 72.138.179.83 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"pronounced like su-boon-too"[edit]

Who says so? do you have a source for that claim? why it isn't as simple as x ubuntu?..one audio recording will suffice..remove that line till you get the official pronunciation..what about ubuntu alone..how it is said?--Alnokta 19:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea on who's the project leader/founder? We could ask him or her. But that part of the article should be removed, unless there's an audio recording, and then it should be cited. Jorophose 23:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The project founder is Jani Monoses, see https://launchpad.net/~jani. --Vincent (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there isn't any "official" pronunciation. There's a poll on the Ubuntu forums about this subject. — Insanity Incarnate 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion[edit]

I just wanted to inform anyone interested that the image used in this article is up for deletion in commons because there are tiny "non-free" logos in the screenshot. If someone wants to voice their opinion, just go to here. SF007 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Requirements[edit]

The memory requirements listed in the article do not match those given by the Xubuntu website ([1]). The article currently claims more memory is needed than Xubuntu says. While as a user, I would tend to agree with the article's advice, the inconsistency is troubling. I'm not changing this automatically in case there is other (unlinkked) documentation that confirms the article. Vegipowrd (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced, you can check where the information came from, and it supports the current version. --Falcorian (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does Xubuntu actually use significantly fewer resources? If Ubuntu and Xubuntu differ only in their desktop environment, does not that mean that 90% of the "programs/code/et al" used with either are the same? Does anyone have benchmark results we can put in a citation? This forum post also expresses my opinion well: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-newbie-8/ubuntu-vs.-xubuntu-questions-505390/#post2520763--ScarySquirrel (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ask here. --wL<speak·check> 13:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Xubuntu's RAM usage actually is greater than Ubuntu with GNOME", but then it says "Once installed, Xubuntu can run with 192 MB RAM, but 256 MB RAM is strongly recommended.", while the Ubuntu article says the desktop (with GNOME) requires 512MB. ShinRa.Electic.Power.Company (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually removed that POV statement. The article they link too didn't prove anything. As to benchmarks, do like I did when I was shopping around for my primary flavor. I'm a minimalist, but require a modern interface. I used by VirtualBox and installed a variety of flavors from Ubuntu to FreeBSD to OpenSuse and installed the Xfce equivalents so for instance Ubuntu I would install Xubuntu. Anyway, to get to the point, when I ran my tests and compared their resource usage using both top and the resource app (which itself skews results especially for memory comparisons; meaning that top is the best measure) you will find about 100 MB difference in memory usage between Ubuntu and Xubuntu which comes from the terminal app. This is massively significant. Like some other people have said, about 90% (actually greater for memory) or so of the resource usage between the two will be the same as all you are doing is choosing a different desktop terminal. Everything else for the most part is the same. But like I said, I'm a minimalist and purist so I don't like to waste resources so for me 100MB is significant even though the percent change might be modest. For those of you who do not want to install a bunch of flavors to test, whichever one you do have simply install the different desktop terminals. At login you then choose which one to go with so you will cause no permanent damage to your system other than some hard drive space being taken up, but that is insignificant too. Go to terminal and then type in top and compare the results. This doesn't require any installation nor rebooting, only a minute or so of logging in and out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.226.124 (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the deleted text, please us an edit summary when you remove or add text. The reference article cited meets the requirements of WP:RS whereas what you have indicated here is WP:OR. If you want to change this then if you can cite a reference showing disagreement or controversy then that can be added, but there is no reason to remove the text and ref at this point. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Linux Mint[edit]

The internal link to Linux Mint has be re-added at the bottom of the article.
I have the feeling some folks trying to promote "their" distribution in certain articles.
I am not saying this is the case here but still I do not see any relevance for that link.
There's also a Debian CD which installs Xfce by default. Many other Xfce-based distributions exist (sidux has one as well as Mandriva, Dreamlinux and VectorLinux are specifically designed to work with Xfce etc.).
Being ANOTHER Ubuntu-based distributions featuring Xfce, makes LinuxMint even less notable for the article.

The link could be replaced with: List of Ubuntu-based distributions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.72.180 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back in there, but I have no connection to Mint personally - don't use it myself, I use Ubuntu. It's connection to Xubuntu is that it is Ubuntu-based and runs Xfce. I agree that a list of Ubuntu-based distros that have Xfce is probably worthwhile adding, perhaps as a Nav box rather than a list? - Ahunt (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally there is a list of Xfce distros at Xfce#Prevalence, perhaps this would be a basis for a nav box? - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - done - have a look!! - Ahunt (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article header is negative about xubuntu[edit]

Highlighting it uses more RAM than standard ubuntu - omitting to say Xfce is much faster than gnome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.71.24 (talk)

There is no evidence that it is faster than Gnome. If you have a ref that shows that then we can add it in. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No idea whether it's xubuntu or xfce that makes the desktop faster than ubuntu and gnome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.71.24 (talk)
Wikipedia is based on verifiable references, so we need refs to change this since the cited ref shows otherwise. - Ahunt (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected[edit]

I have protected the article from editing due to the content dispute, please note that the version protected may be the wrong version. Please explain why the text but at least for the beta of Xubuntu 9.10 this did not seem to be the case. Testing concluded that Xubuntu 9.10 beta's RAM usage was actually greater than Ubuntu's 9.10 beta with GNOME. should either be in the article or be removed and come to some consensus. Please also note WP:CIVIL and discuss the content not other editors or their actions. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much evidence of a dispute here, just a single disruptive editor. Greenman (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I am looking to establish a consensus in the section below as well. Once we have that the article can be unprotected. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you guys serious. For those of you who are reading this for the first time, the dispute has come about because Ahunt and I had strong words that were deleted. Ahunt consequentially recruited his friend Greenman to bully me. They in turn attempted to recruit someone higher up the food chain, MilborneOne, to silence me. The only reason why they are fighting hard is because I insulted them heavily as can be seen in the history page. I do not apologize for this. I like to show people for who they are. Knowledge, especially under the encyclopedic perspective, is supposed to be objective. I purposely insulted Ahunt to see how "objective" he was. No matter how much I insult you 2+2 = 4. The test is to see your behavior when personally assaulted. Ahunt failed, in my opinion. He and his friend continue their SUBJECTIVE assault against me and objective knowledge. This is essentially the whole story.
More on the objective issue. The dispute regards their statement that a beta was shown to use more resources than a finalized product. As anyone who uses Linux and has an understanding thereof would know, Xcfe uses far fewer resource than Gnome which is the maximum expression of eye candy a typical Linux desktop can show. They used an article that is inaccessible to unregistered users authored by an individual who did not produce a scientific study of any kind to show that a BETA, a BETA performed more poorly than intended. This is inappropriate for the header whose original purpose was to simple state, simply state that Xubuntu which is the Xcfe version of Ubuntu uses fewer resources than Ubuntu (which it ought since the only fundamental difference is Xfce vs. Gnome). Therefore, the burden of proof is on the editor that ADDED this. In addition, the comparision should be made regarding the FINALIZED product as a beta is just that- a BETA.
The only reason why they CHOOSE not to accept the revert back to the original state is because of their personal dislike of me. All evidence points to the revert.99.30.226.124 (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who you are, but your edit warring, threats, insults, personal attacks, lack of civil behaviour and now paranoid ramblings about conspiracies are not helping make any sort of case here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for restoration of deleted content[edit]

User:99.30.226.124 has been edit warring to remove this text from the article:

The Xfce desktop environment is intended to use fewer system resources than the default GNOME, but at least for the beta of Xubuntu 9.10 this did not seem to be the case. Testing concluded that Xubuntu 9.10 beta's RAM usage was actually greater than Ubuntu's 9.10 beta with GNOME.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7520/1.html|title = Lubuntu: Floats Like a Butterfly, Stings Like a Bee|accessdate = 2009-10-19|publisher = Linux Magazine|date = 9 September 2009}}</ref>

So far they have presented no reliable ref to show that the information is incorrect. The article is currently protected with the text removed and therefore I propose that the deleted text and ref be restored. - Ahunt (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No argument with this proposal, there has been no constructive dispute. Greenman (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With no sign of opposition to Ahunt's proposal to restore the test I have released the protection. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to request semi-protection, but since it is now open, let's see how it goes. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you guys serious? A significant portion of the discussion on this page is about that nonsense paragraph. In addition, no real evidence has been brought forth that current non-beta Xubuntu is as claimed regarding the beta. In addition, like before, if you guys understood computers to make a claim that Xfce uses more resources than Gnome is almost preposterous. Finally, it was not I that was "warring." Once again I have been accused of improper behavior. Therefore, I will have to start escalating this.99.30.226.124 (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, after re-reading everything in preparation for a war with you guys, I noticed that the decision to "unlock" the page in Ahunt's favor after being seconded by Greenman who Ahunt sent in to bully me with comments to my personal page took a little under 3 hrs. Yeah, this is objective. Now you guys really pissed me off. If you only knew...your move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.226.124 (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was consulted to find consensus for four days. That you decided not to participate in consensus building and would rather issue yet more threats is your decision. The only way to get this article changed at this point is to build a new consensus. Carrying on an edit war against consensus is mere vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally a quick search turns up hundreds of articles on Xubuntu's unexpectedly high RAM useage. I have cited just three of these and also, because the section was getting a bit long for the lead para, I have moved it down to the "Goals" section. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can be noted that User:Greenman has taken this to ANI. - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a further note User:99.30.226.124 was blocked for 31 hours for "disruptive editing" by User:Tnxman307. That admin also noted "Further issues can probably be solved with semi-protection". - Ahunt (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a simple user who wants to install some variety of Ubuntu on a netbook with limited amount of memory (0.5GB), I'm confused by the above arguments. The Xubuntu site requires 192MB of RAM and 2GB of disk space, whereas the Ubuntu site suggests 1GB of RAM and 15GB of disk for the desktop version (though it hides that requirement pretty well) and recommends 512MB for Netbook Ubuntu (4GB disk) and 256MB (2GB) for Xubuntu. The Linux magazine article's unfavourable comparison of Xubuntu claims that it uses 311MB RAM using a mix of 12 applications compared with 290MB for Ubuntu, but possibly much of that comes from one app: the terminal shell. (My current Ubuntu system is using twice that.) It's also dated, as it refers to some version of 9.10 whereas the above seems to apply to 10.10 - additionally the current netbook version of Ubuntu appears to implement the Unity desktop which might be even more hungry and maybe Canonical is preparing the way.
Are the above references quotable in the article or do we need third party sources? Chris55 (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a bit more googling produces a survey from an IBM Software Engineer who should know what he's doing, tho it's dated 2007. He compares Ubuntu and Xubuntu on 256 and 128MB machines. He measures a base of 231 on Ubuntu and 170 for Xubuntu on the 256 machine (I'm just truncating the KB figures). Significantly, on the 128 machine the Ubuntu already has 18 swap whereas X has none. With a "light" loading, the swap on the 128 machine is slowing U down significantly, but not X (96 cf 64). That seems to me a sensible test with those memory levels and produces an opposite conclusion to the Smart article, which doesn't even record the machine memory and is actually promoting Lubuntu. Chris55 (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that article, I have incorporated it into the text. The later criticisms are about a later version, but this does add some background. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found and added another review, this time of Xubuntu 9.04, to fill in the timeline gaps. - Ahunt (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why I removed quotations[edit]

Sorry to beat what some may see as a dead horse but I found the presentation of information in the Goals section to be unsatisfactory. In particular the final paragraph had three quotes all taken from reviews of Lubuntu that seem to be cherry-picked for their strongly negative wording.

The first quote makes it appear that the Doru Barbu is the one asserting that Xubuntu fails to be lightweight, even though, when one looks at the full sentence ("The developers claim that, while Xubuntu is often represented as a lightweight distro, it actually fails to run on older hardware, so they are targeting their Linux distribution at older legacy computers and devices with less than 256 MB of RAM."), Barbu is actually reporting that the Lubuntu developers are the ones asserting this claim.

The second quote refers to recent benchmarks and drops the link from the words "sometimes even more so!" When one follows the link, it is in fact the very same testing done by Linux Magazine already mentioned in the prior paragraph. To include this quote is almost like using the same information twice but presenting it as if it were two opinions that were derived independently from each other.

So what I've done is remove the first two quotes but left the citations, while changing the paragraph's lead sentence and keeping the third quote as an example of what reviewers of Lubuntu have been saying. I believe this more honestly presents the issue of Xubuntu's deficiencies.Whitejay251 07:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look fine, it still conveys the points the reviewers made. - Ahunt (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link in the article[edit]

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Xubuntu/Specifications/Intrepid/StrategyDocument#Mission%20Statement הוי ארצי (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup you are right. I Dead link tagged it, as I could not find it on Archive.org. - Ahunt (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative[edit]

I reverted this edit for a number of reasons, but I wanted to give an explanation on the talk page. It appears to be promotional in nature, and is lacking in any third-party sources giving it any weight, and as the primary source is a blog, it isn't even a reliable source in its own right. - SudoGhost 17:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this needs a proper ref to be added. - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lubuntu[edit]

Added Lubuntu to see also since it has the same goal to be a light distro of Ubuntu, No idea why crunchbang is there as it is no longer based on Ubuntu. Derpian (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lubuntu is linked in the text of the article, but it is high up, so okay to put in in the "see alsos as well. You can remove CrunchBang if you like, - Ahunt (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I'll keep Spri there since it's was the same goal as Ubuntu, a lightweight desktop with Ubuntu. Crunchbang used to be this but no longer. Derpian (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive quoting[edit]

I think there is way too much quoting of sources in the article. --Mortense (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying there are too many references or too many quotations? - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

support period[edit]

The article states, in part:

" This three year period is, like other Ubuntu derived releases such as Kubuntu and Edbuntu, two years shorter than Ubuntu's planned five year LTS period."

Actually, Kubuntu LTS's are supported for 5 years, just like Ubuntu. (Xubuntu is still at 3 years, though.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.112.90 (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: complete reorganisation[edit]

Having used both Debian (with xfce and lightdm) and Ubuntu, and finding neither really satisfactory, I'm the sort of reader who naturally expects to find articles like this one useful. But it isn't useful. It has ten-year-old history in excruciating detail. OK, history has a place, but why such detail? Then it presents arguments for/against Xubuntu, but they assume that memory requirement is the most important criterion. For me (and probably most users nowadays) it's irrelevant whether the OS that runs our multi-gigabyte desktops takes 256M or 512M. A bunch of other distros get mentioned in passing.

What I would really find useful is an article comparing the different distros; or at least an article comparing all the Debian-based distros with each other in some systematic way; because almost nobody is interested in Xubuntu in isolation. Somebody who comes to an article about Xubuntu is almost always trying to get an informed opinion as to whether he/she would like Xubuntu better than the alternatives. There is a Wikipedia article ostensibly addressing that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions) but actually it is quite useless for most users because most of the 70-odd distros - which are all presented on an equal basis - have too few users to find all the bugs, far too small user communities to discuss problems and fixes, and too small developer communities to do much about them. I doubt whether there are even 10 distros that are really "ready for prime time" (with enough users to expose the problems, a big enough active community to filter out the ones that are just misunderstandings, and enough developer commitment to do something about the real defects), let alone 70+. An article that focused on those - for most of us, the real candidates for real use - would be extremely valuable. Sayitclearly (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions. This article is largely a history of Xubuntu and in that way is similar to the articles on Lubuntu and the List of Ubuntu releases. The sort of comparison article you are looking for really is not a topic for an encyclopedia, it is more the sort of thing you would expect in a tech press article. Here were are limited to facts that can be sourced to reliable references so unless someone in the tech press has written a comparison article that we can use as a reference, we can't make up our own comparison as they would be original research. The added problem, too is that even if someone in the tech press did write a comparison article, it would be valid for only single versions, ie Xunbuntu 16.04 vs other current distros. As soon as a new version came out the old comparison would only be useful historically. In short, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and what you are looking for is not the sort of topic that belongs in an encyclopedia. This is really more something you would find on http://distrowatch.com/ or similar sites.- Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xubuntu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Xubuntu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt deletes good faith edits[edit]

Ahunt, you can not just delete good faith edits. You don't own the article. A structured information is always better than an uninterrupted text. Besides, I have inserted the full quotation from the reference. 77.241.133.189 (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page, although you should have done so when first reverted instead of edit warring. As per WP:BRD you need to create a consensus here to include the changes that you want to include. So please go ahead and make your case here. - Ahunt (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change the content of the section. I only divided it into subsections after releases, just as it is done in the next section. Indeed a structured text is better in delivering information.
And you have simply deleted my good faith edits like a bully, without showing any respect, and with false pretext. Now I see why Wikipedia has its reputation of being rude and unwelcoming to new editors.
You started the edit war, not me. But I will not give in to a bully.77.241.133.189 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First off you need to read WP:NPA and stop calling other editors names. Then you need to make some sort of case for the edits you want to include. - Ahunt (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you need to read WP:5P and stop deleting other people's contributions at will. Then you need to make some sort of case for why you want to remove structuring of the text.77.241.133.37 (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have now read the talk page -- there is a history here, people have been bullied away before me.77.241.133.37 (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is any random blog in the internet a "verifyable source"? Can I quote from my blog?77.241.133.37 (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's start from the top here. You made some changes to the article, which I reverted. As per WP:BRD you are next required to come here to the talk page and make a case for including your edits and gain a consensus for them to be included. Instead you have edit warred to try to force them in and then come here and carried out a campaign of personal attacks and insults. You have made no attempt to make a case for your edits to be included or to build a consensus to include them. In my experience editors who start off making accusations of "bullying" or other personal attacks on other editors, do so because they have no rational reason to include their edits and are just trying to shout down any rational discussion. It seems pretty clear that you aren't going to actually make a case for your edits. As noted in WP:BRD, the onus is on you to make that case and, if not, then the edits will be removed as "no consensus" to be included.

As a courtesy, I will do a point-by-point clarification why I think your edits should not be included:

  • Addition of the section title Xubuntu 9.10 (?) (2010) - you indicated, in this choice of title, by use of the question mark, that you didn't know which version this review was discussing. The reference was posted on 6 May 2010, just after the release of Xubuntu 10.04 LTS, but the reference does not explicitly specify which version is being discussed. Your guess that is is 9.10 is clearly WP:OR, not based upon a WP:RS and likely wrong, so this title needs to be removed.
  • Inclusion of the other section titles Xubuntu 6.10 (2007), Xubuntu 9.04 (2009) and Xubuntu 9.10 beta (2009) - these are supported by the cited refs, but are not necessary and just hinder reading flow. We don't need a new sub-section for each paragraph and in general an article section normally contains two or more paragraphs. Each para clearly states which version is being discussed, so the section headings are just redundant. Furthermore, since the Xubuntu 9.10 (?) (2010) title needs to be removed, the concept of assigning each paragraph to an individual section falls apart. Where do we put the one review that we are unsure of the version number? The Performance section clearly only works without the subheadings.
  • The quote you added from the Oh ref: On the other hand, those who have tested Lubuntu have commented that it runs faster than Xubuntu and use half as much RAM. (I have not tested this personally. Can anyone verify this?) is not part of the same para that the original quote included is from. It was not included originally because it is off-topic (discusses Lubuntu) and is speculation on the part of the ref author, as he clearly states he has not confirmed this observation. Wikipedia does not use speculation, so this needs to be removed, which is why it was not included in the first place. Your own later edit indicating that the quote you added is speculation is all the proof that need be submitted that this does not belong here. Why would you even add an off-topic quote and then discredit it?

As as your question about references goes, please refer to WP:RS and especially WP:SPS for why you cannot cite your own personal blog. Your attempt to tag a bunch of references uses malformed formatting and needs to be removed, too. If you have questions about sources you should now bring each one of them up here, citing each ref and detailing what your issue with each one is. - Ahunt (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have specified the reasons in the comments to my edits: one link doesn't link to the article at all; the other link does not contain the first-hand research.77.241.133.37 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I have formatted my edits wrong then you, as a senior editor, should reformat them in the right way, not delete them. That is what WP:5P says: be friendly to new editors.77.241.133.37 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot omit the important part of the quote that changes the meaning of the whole quote. That is a deliberate disinformation.77.241.133.37 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As concerning the reviews which didn't even specify the version of xubuntu they were talking -- you are right, I will indicate that they didn't know which version.77.241.133.37 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is to be WP:CIVIL, which I have done from the start, while you were writing insults and personal attacks here. The record is right above. Civility means you need to discuss your changes politely, without all the insults, but it does not mean that you automatically get your way without creating a consensus here.

I am not editing the article again until we have completed here. You are already in violation of the WP:3RR, while I am not. So far you are making a total formatting mess of the article, so much needs to be fixed and there still remains no consensus for any of your changes. The more you keep adding poorly formatted text and tags, the bigger the mess you create, the more the only solution becomes to "revert to the last clean version".

As far as the section title version goes Xubuntu 9.10 or 10.04 (2010), first off we don't use section headings like that to introduce doubt, we omit them. Second you are still far into WP:OR here, making wild guesses as to which version is being discussed. It could be any version from 6.06 LTS to 10.04 LTS. You need a ref to put up a version number there and, as you have noted, there isn't one. There is no consensus to use those section titles. You have not made any kind of case for why they are needed. I have made a case for why they aren't.

Adding unneeded quotes and then trying to discredit them is disingenuous. It is not an "important part of the quote that changes the meaning of the whole quote", it is from a whole different paragraph in the ref. As the ref author notes the existing quote is verified, while the part you added is speculation. We don't use speculation in an encyclopedia, so it doesn't belong, which is why it was omitted in the first place.

Your edit summaries on your objections to the refs are not at all clear. If you want to discuss any of these then please bring them each here. We aren't going to swap edit summaries in lieu of a proper discussion.

So far your uncivil language and personal attacks have kept other editors watching the article from participating in here. If you would carefully layout why you think these changes are needed then, making a case for each one then we can discuss. Otherwise at this point, you haven't made a case for any of these changes and there is no consensus for your changes. - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Why would you even add an off-topic quote and then discredit it?"

Because I was afraid to delete things. You have created an unfriendly atmosphere of bullying here. Therefore I only dared to do small insignificant changes. And yet you managed to attack and scare me. Imagine I started deleting all that nonsense in the "performance" chapter... 77.241.133.37 (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see you are back to the insults again. I am not going to give you endless time for your ongoing personal attacks and "poor me" rants, unless you can make rational arguments for including the text you want to include, then there is no need for further discussion here. I'll leave this thread open to see if any other editors would like to contribute, before it is closed out. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I told you the reasons for my edits several times: 1) a structured text is better in conveying information then unstructured, just look at the next chapter; 2) the link is wrong, it doesn't link to any article at all. 77.241.133.37 (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above I disagree. I have no idea what "link" you are talking about. Regardless, let's see if you have convinced any other editors to support you here and form a consensus to include your changes. - Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous, "I have not tested this personally. Can anyone verify this?" is not a constructive sentence to insert in an encyclopedia. Also, please stop your personal attacks. It marks it hard for anyone to give your points any consideration if you're too busy attacking other editors rather than stating your case. You have been asked to discuss on the talk page, but instead are continuing with your disruptive editing. Some of the concerns you raise about the references are likely valid and would be accepted, but not while you undermine them with your approach. Greenman (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To other editors, if they ever come here:[edit]

So, they bullied me away, just like the other chap...

Anyway, to other editors, if they ever come here:

1) reference [21] doesn't link to the article it claims to link.

2) ...never mind, apparently nobody cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.241.133.37 (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for some actual information  Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"As recently as September 2010 the Xubuntu developers claimed..."[edit]

I believe this phrase is not very well formulated. Indeed September 2010 was about a decade ago. And about twenty releases ago. This can hardly be called "recently". I suggest to change it to "In 2010 the Xubuntu developers claimed..." -- are there any objections? 77.241.133.37 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense,  Done - Ahunt (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 23 does not contain the claimed information[edit]

Indeed, the reference contains only a link to the claimed information. The link, however, is broken - it does not link to any article. The reference [23] therefore has to be removed. Are there any objections? 62.107.9.29 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to remove this ref. The ref says "Xubuntu – the current “lightweight” choice – is not as slender a distribution as people tend to think. Recent benchmarks show it to be just as “demanding” as regular Ubuntu – sometimes even more so!" As per WP:LINKROT we don't remove our own Wikipedia refs because they are broken, we certainly don't remove refs because their internal links are broken. Regardless that link is found at https://web.archive.org/web/20100618102018/http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7520/1.html. We could quote that, as it is quite detailed. - Ahunt (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But this is our reference [21] which we have already referred to. Thus reference [23] provides no new information but simply retells the story of reference [21]. Therefore it has to be removed. There is no need to have two identical references. 77.241.140.26 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It provides new information and contributes to the preponderance of reviewers who have noted this, which is why the paragraph is plural.- Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Therefore if there are other reviewers that have noted the article of Laura, I can quote them as well, right? As an yet another indication that Xubuntu "is lightweight and works great".77.241.140.26 (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference [22] does not contain the claimed information[edit]

Indeed the authors of the article merely claim that some unidentified lubuntu developers believe that "[xubuntu] fails to run on older hardware".

However there is no reference in the article, no link, nothing whatsoever to prove their claim.

Therefore this reference does not satisfy wikipedia's criteria of verifyability.

Therefore this reference must be removed.

Are there any objections? 77.241.138.237 (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are objections. It is a WP:RS, and meets WP:V; they do not have to "prove their claims" and there is no reason to remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, on Maketecheasier there is an article which says that somebody else believes Xubuntu is good for old hardware. Since they do not have to prove their claims I shall put that reference to the text for a balanced view. 77.241.140.26 (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure that is fine, I have just edited it to conform to the ref cited. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am impressed.77.241.140.26 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
May I complete the quote "...she also finds it easy to customise."?77.241.140.26 (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I did as a paraphrase to avoid "quotes within quotes". - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Subsequent reviewers emphasized Xubuntu's perceived deficiencies..." has invalid references[edit]

As I showed above this sentence is based on two unacceptable references. Therefore it has to be removed. Are there any objections? 77.241.138.237 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, invalid argument, both refs are valid. - Ahunt (talk)
Ok. 77.241.140.26 (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation from Maketecheasier[edit]

The article quotes a negative opinion about xubuntu from Maketecheasier.

However, the same site has also positive opinions about xubuntu. Therefore, for a balanced view, I suggest also to quote the positive opinion from the same site. I suggest to add the following paragraph:

However, in 2019 Jeff Mitchell from Maketecheasier in his article "How to speed up your PC" ranked xubuntu above lubuntu when suggesting light-weight operating systems.

The link is https://www.maketecheasier.com/speed-up-linux-computer/

Are there any objections? Dmt137 (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That ref only says Xfce is designed to be lightweight and speed-optimized. Multi-touch capabilities and ample customization options make this a suitable desktop environment even for aesthetic purposes. and then gives installation instructions. What do you think it stated that was a useful opinion about Xubuntu? - Ahunt (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When listing the light-weight operating systems to speed up a PC he puts xubuntu as first option, and lubuntu as second. That clearly indicates that this particular author rates xubuntu as the best option to speed up a PC. This is a very useful and important opinion about xubuntu. 77.241.140.26 (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which also clearly contradicts the statement of the purpoted deficiencies of Xubuntu with respect to Lubuntu. 77.241.140.26 (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to say, he gives the installation instructions for Xubuntu. As the first option. And then for Lubuntu. As the second option. Apparently this reviewer rates Xubuntu above Lubuntu as for speeding up your PC. Which contradicts the statement in the article that reviewers find deficiencies in Xubuntu as compared to Lubuntu. Here is a reviewer that doesn't. 77.241.140.26 (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:OR again. Nothing in that article indicates that the OSs are listed in any kind of priority order, they are just options. Also read the quote carefully and compare it to Smart's observations that Xfce is lightweight, but its implementation in Xubuntu is not, because of other things added. This ref does not say Xubuntu is lightweight, it says Xfce is. I doesn't see anything useful in it to quote. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. How about this:
"Notwithstanding, another reviewer from the same outlet does recommend installation of xubuntu-desktop in order to speed up a linux PC."
It shows that despite the negative quotation the other reviewers of the outlet still recommend installation of xubuntu as a speedy alternative to other OSes.77.241.140.26 (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about more succinctly, "In July 2019, Jeff Mitchell of MakeTechEasier recommended Xubuntu as one option to speed up a Linux PC"?
Perfect.77.241.140.26 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section now shows that the lower performance was more of an issue in the 2009-10 period and less so in more recent years. That seems intuitively correct, mostly as it is usually compared to Ubuntu, which grew more bloated and slower in that same period. Also, from 2010-19 in general hardware has grown more capable, making Xubuntu run more quickly in testing. I think the totality of the reviews shows that trend now. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to performance of beta-software[edit]

Performance of the beta-version of a software cannot be used as an indicator of the performance of the final version. Indeed the beta-version can still contain debugging code which takes up memory and reduces performance. It can also contain bugs, memory leaks, which inflate its memory usage.

Therefore I suggest one of the two possibilities: i) remove the paragraph about performance of the beta-version from the "performance" section since it is irrelevant for the performance of the final version. ii) add at the end of the paragraph, "...however the performance of the beta-version is not a good indicator for the performance of the final version.

What is your opinion? 77.241.138.237 (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It already indicates that the review is of beta software, but just for clarity I have linked it to beta version in case any readers are unclear on that. - Ahunt (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But why at all mention the performance of beta-software? Why do you think it is of any use for the reader? 77.241.140.26 (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the entire ref, as archived, and there is no mention of Xubuntu 9.10 beta or non-beta in it or any other version. That seems to have been derived from the article date of 9 September 2009 and the statement Due out next month, development versions have been hitting the mirrors so it’s not too hard to see where these systems are currently at, via a few simple tests. That is not 100% clear which versions he is referring to. I have rewritten the paragraph to quote what he does actually say instead, which is more general and which I think should solve this issue. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.77.241.140.26 (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for re-ordering of some sections[edit]

Currently, these three sections are in this order:

  • Releases
  • Applications
  • Table of releases

Some thoughts:

  1. It seems odd to have the 'Applications' section between both 'releases' sections. A better place would be either before (my preference) of after the releases.
  2. It might be better to have the (fairly short) table of releases come before the (longer, more detailed) list of all releases. The table would then be some kind of quick overview, with the more elaborate text below.
  3. The table of releases should probably not be a separate section but rather a part of the general 'Releases' section.
  4. Finally, I don't see why 'Performance' is part of the 'History' section. In this case, I think a separate section is in order.

Does anybody mind if I change it accordingly? --MichielN (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check the article on Lubuntu for how these articles are normally organized. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your swift response. When you say 'how these articles are normally organized', does that mean there is a guideline or some general consensus? Because other than the Lubuntu example I have not yet found any other articles about Linux distributions that use this order.--MichielN (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know there is no formal consensus. Your proposed order above seems more logical, but if we implement your ideas we will need to re-order a few more articles that were generally patterned after the Xubuntu article organization, including Lubuntu and Ubuntu Unity. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xubuntu&oldid=1203127905"