Talk:Gobuntu

I don't get it

I don't get it, I thought Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Xubuntu only included free software?  Tcrow777  talk  05:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

some of it is gratis. sudo apt-get install vrms and then run it. For example, the restricted drivers manager in Feisty installs non-free drivers. --L^augh! 01:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care about free software vs. proprietary software or free of charge free software vs. freeware, just as long as I can use it easily (what good is source code if the software is a piece of junk).  Tcrow777  talk  01:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ --Easyas12c 16:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Then simply put, you aren't the person this is targeted towards. Anyway, this is off topic. talk pages should be used for discussion of improvement on the article, not the subject of it --L^ie! 17:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The article should explain why Gobuntu exists? --Easyas12c 12:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It already does. --Longing.... 12:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to stick with Freespire, it has a lot of non-free software and satisfies my boycott of GPLv3 software.  Tcrow777  talk  20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What: Free software operating system, Where: At Canonical and Ubuntu community, When: July 10th 2007, Why: The article does not state. --Easyas12c 08:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Big logo

The logo needs to be smaller.

Peteturtle 17:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The logo size is fine.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.72.218 (talk • contribs)

Isnt that just debian?

"Gobuntu is an official derivative of the Ubuntu operating system, aiming to provide a distribution consisting entirely of free software."

Ubuntu itself is debian sid + some nice artwork etc... + non-free stuff

Kinda makes Gibuntu pointless

--86.16.160.17 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu also has lots of added free stuff which is missing in Debian, much of which is aimed at making it an easier and better-looking desktop. See http://utnubu.alioth.debian.org/binary-versiondiff.html for more info: it's slightly out of date, but gives you the general idea. Technobadger (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is later given back to Debian. I'm with parent--it's pointless for those in the know. It's just a "marketing" ploy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.107.138 (talk • contribs)

Ubuntu is a "marketing ploy" for the non-profit developer group that produces Debian? Are you sure about that? :-) Technobadger (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Gobuntu is derived from Ubuntu which is derived from Debian which is derived from the GNU Project + the Linux kernel. Using your logic (or lack thereof), all distrobutions are pointless, and there should just be one called GNU/Linux. 143.166.255.58 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC) - A Vigilante

Latest release 8.04?

Hm, as far as I see it, the official mirror still only carries a release of 7.10. I've edited the page accordingly. Robert_Kosten (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just checked it and you are right! I will add a ref for that. I expect it will be out shortly. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The mailing list (according to its archives) is extremely dead since the discussion of Shuttleworth's Gobuntu-should-help-gNewSense post died down... I've inquired about 8.04 there but I've yet to receive any answer. Their wiki states a planned new homepage and artworks for Gobuntu as well, which aren't there yet, as well. Robert_Kosten (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the latest stable release be 8.04 now? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all of the Ubuntu family has moved to 8.04. Samurailink3 (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Check the download link on The Gobuntu page it is still 7.10. - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Released

It has been released: http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/gobuntu/releases/hardy/release/. This was posted on the gobuntu-devel mailing list, but I can't seem to find it on the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altonbr (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the Gobuntu download page (hover over the download link to see the file name) and it is "http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/gobuntu/releases/7.10/release/" So the latest version remains 7.10 and not 8.04. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just so you know my sources however: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gobuntu-devel/2008-June/000805.html Altonbr (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The ref makes it sound like they will mail out CDs of Gobuntu 8.04, even though it is not available as a download yet. Seems odd. Since Mark Shuttleworth's post the project seems to have lost momentum. - Ahunt (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because the project is merging back with Ubuntu, hopefully giving users the ability to select "only free software" and actually mean it. That was posted on the Gobuntu list, but might not even happen. Altonbr (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Then we should probably reference that and insert that info into the article. No you have the link where it says that? - Ahunt (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Gobuntu Discontinued after 8.04

According to Jono Bacon on the Gobuntu mailing list, Gobuntu will be merged with mainstream Ubuntu after 8.04 (8.10 Intrepid Ibex) in the form of a 'free-software only' option: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gobuntu-devel/2008-June/000795.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altonbr (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I would say that is rather important to this article! I have added text, a quote and incorporated the linked article as a reference. Thanks for finding it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Early Criticism

The first sentence of that section makes no sense. First of all, neither Firefox nor Thunderbird are licensed under the GPL. Secondly, the GPL does not define what free software is. The closest thing to a definition of Free Software are the Four Software Freedoms by the FSF or alternatively the Debian Free Software Guidelines (later copied and renamed to become OSI's Open Source Definition). While it is true that Firefox and Thunderbird as packaged by the upstream developers contain non-free material, this has no impact on the GPL whatsoever. Furthermore, Firefox and Thunderbird have been successfully stripped of their non-free components and re-published under different names, see Iceweasel for Debian. Thus, to simplify and say Firefox and Thunderbird are non-free per se is not correct, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.156.43.153 (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right, it was under FSF's free software definition, not GPL. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its the DFSG the artwork falls afoul of - the FSF dont care about "non-functional" parts of the program, which the icons are. AIUI, the (main) issues the FSF have with Mozilla stuff is A. they encourage people install non-free software (eg, the macromedia flash in firefox) and the non-free components shipped in the offical Mozilla builds. The page should really be corrected, but I wont unless theres some feedback here to. Kgoetz (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a bit odd since the standard Gnome browser which was proposed for Gobuntu in place of FF, Epiphany, also can use Flash (I am using Epiphany with Flash right now!). If you have a reference that details the FSF objections then by all means put it it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Epiphany *allows* you to use flash - after all, theres free implementations - it doesn't *encourage* you to use a proprietary flash. I'm looking for a good offical-looking reference. kgoetz (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A good ref on the subject would be the best resource! I am using both FireFox 3 and Epiphany 2.22.2 and wasn't "encouraged" by either to install Flash or any other plug-in. - Ahunt (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple of refs that lend support to the argument that the problem with Firefox in Gobuntu was that the logos were non-free: Dive Into Mark and Bug Report #83118. The former source says "The issue is so simple, I can explain it in 12 words: the copyright license governing these files does not permit modification or redistribution. That’s it. Really. Anyone who claims the issue is more complicated than that is either misinformed or lying." The bug report is really the last word on the subject since it started the issue. It says:

"The official Firefox icons are not available under an open source license.

Steps to reproduce:

1. Open Firefox

2. Type "about:license" and click Go

3. Read the text at the bottom of the page: "Image files containing the trademarks and logos of the Mozilla Foundation, which may not be reproduced without permission. (Copyright ©2004-2006 The Mozilla Foundation. All Rights Reserved.)"

I am NOT claiming that the application is non-free because the name is trademarked. (There are lots of open source applications whose names are protected by trademark.) This bug is NOT claiming that the application icons are non-free because they are trademarked. The application icons are non-free because they are Copyright (c) 2004-2006 The Mozilla Foundation, All Rights Reserved. The fact that Canonical can distribute these icons at all is due to a special arrangement with Mozilla. These rights are specific to Canonical and are not automatically transferred to derivative distributions"

I don't find that anyone says that there is a GPL or other licence problem or FSF freedoms - it is just that Firefox can't be freely remixed and redistributed because of the logos. So in summing up I think you are right - it was not GPL or FSF that was the issue, it is that the Mozilla licencing of the logos makes them and the whole application non-free. I will fix the article and cite these refs. - Ahunt (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad you found some good refs - I haven't had time to do proper research yet. kgoetz (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed up the section in the article - please do have a look and see if you think that better reflects the refs and what you know of the situation. I am just trying to get the story right! _ Ahunt (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hardy and Intrepid shipped with Firefox default. Why does this section claim otherwise (in future tense)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.233.239 (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu Hardy and Intrepid shipped with Firefox, but this article is about Gobuntu - I have clarified that. - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Discontinued

Recently the wording has been changed from "is" to "was." That should not be unless there's an announcement somewhere that the project has been officially discontinued. I have been on both the Ubuntu and Gobunto websites, and there's no announcement of any discontinuation of the Gobuntu project. Please supply specific information or I will change it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxonjf (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The refs all indicate that the project is still active until the release of 8.04 is complete. There is no statement that I can find saying that it has been discontinued at this point in time, although that is very likely at some point in the near future. I have changed the text back to indicate that the project is still active although suffering from inactivity. If anyone can cite a ref that shows that it has actually been terminated then that is fine, but I can't find it.

The official page on the project says:

"Gobuntu 8.04 and future of Gobuntu"

"Gobuntu 8.04 is not yet available, since the Gobuntu community has been relatively inactive. The daily snapshot from 20080421 is basically what could be released, if enough people test it and report it so that release can be made."

"The new "Free software only" installation option in the normal Ubuntu (press F6 in the boot menu twice) basically achieves what Gobuntu is aiming for, as long as the general goal of having "clean" main and universe repositories is fulfilled (which is goal of the Ubuntu as a whole). Given that many goals Gobuntu has are goals of Ubuntu in general also, and the fact that gNewSense is anyway doing the work that can also benefit Ubuntu (knowledge of problematic packages), the mission of Gobuntu is a bit up in the air. There's discussion initiated by Mark Shuttleworth on the gobuntu-devel mailing list, continuing also in May. Feel free to participate in the discussion so that some conclusion of what'll be done can be made.""

- Ahunt (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this help at all? https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2008-June/000434.html kgoetz (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish it did, but we really need to find an announcement that the project has actually ended. Everything that has been found says it will end when 8.04 is released, but the download page shows that it hasn't been released yet. With the regular Ubuntu now 8.10, I doubt that Gobuntu 8.04 will be released, as there isn't a lot of reason to do so now. It is pretty obvious that the project has stalled, but we still need a reference to update this article from. - Ahunt (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so pedantic. The project is dead. Final. It has been merged into Hardy and Intrepid as a 'Free-software' option in the alternate installer and will continue to be so in Jaunty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.94.160 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't about pedantry - it is about verifiability. Provide a reference to back up what you have said and we can happily wrap up this story. - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the text as far as I can given the current verifiable information. If anyone can cite a ref saying that the project has been terminated that would be great and allow the final chapter in this story to be written. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

At last we have some definative refs that indicate that 8.04 has been released and the Gobuntu project is complete. I have updated the article to reflect this. - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gobuntu. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430034629/http://cdimage.ubuntu.com:80/gobuntu/releases/8.04.1/release/ to http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/gobuntu/releases/8.04.1/release/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929075747/https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gobuntu-devel/2008-June/000795.html to https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gobuntu-devel/2008-June/000795.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717221327/https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gobuntu-devel/2007-October/000395.html to https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gobuntu-devel/2007-October/000395.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516115000/http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/gobuntu to http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/gobuntu
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929075504/https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gobuntu-devel/2008-April/000650.html to https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/gobuntu-devel/2008-April/000650.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)