Talk:List of Ubuntu-based distributions

Missing

This list is missing Ubuntu Muslim edition and Whitebuntu. It should NOT be merged with the Ubuntu CE page though there could be a reference to it within other articles about religious use of linux perhaps also mentioning things like red flag linux along the lines of idealogical abuse of linux. It would be hard to get a NPOV on this however. --Curuxz 18:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you looked at the page history, you'll see that Ubuntu Muslim Edition amongst other Ubuntu based distros were removed from this page.jonathon 19:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And, as the remover, I did so because it isn't notable enough to have its own article. I removed Ichthux as well, so it's not like I'm discriminating against non-Christian distros. I'm discriminating against non-notable distros. Chris Cunningham 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

During the AfDs for Ubuntu Christian Edition, Ichthux, and Ubuntu Muslim Edition, the proposal was that they should be listed/discussed in the article on Ubuntu, or List_of_Ubuntu-based_distributions. jonathon 23:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry did not realize that was the case, sorry for wasting your time. --Curuxz 07:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Realize that most, if not all of the unofficial Ubuntu distros will be linked here, with a link to their homepage. The exceptions are those that have the incredibly vague, undefined, indeterminable and unknowable criteria of "significant" and 'notable". 19:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo daoist (talk • contribs)

Removal of links

I just reversed Thumperward's edit that removed all links to the web sites of the distros without their own article. There were AfDs for Ubuntu Muslim Edition and Ubuntu Christian Edition that called for a merge of content, implicitly including links. Notability was not a significant issue. Pingveno ( talk | contrib ) 23:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't owe these projects any traffic. List articles are not DistroWatch replacements. These are going back out. "including links" was not "implicit" in any way. Chris Cunningham 08:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Including links is at least implicit, if not required under Wikipedia guidelines --- in specific WP:CITE.jonathon 14:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And a link to a non-notable primary source fails WP:CITE anyway, so if the subject isn't notable it can't be backed up by a "reference" to its own home page. When these distros are known outside the handful of forums they were announced on, I'm sure a reliable primary source will link to them (thus leading to their notability being established enough to warrant separate articles). Chris Cunningham 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE does not discount the home site of a distro. What it requests is supporting evidence from other sources. If I wanted to get uinto an edit war, I'd doso, by expanding the descrioption of each distro to at least 1,000 words, and include supporting documentation. It migyht fail WP:NOR, but that is a hazard I'll risk.jonathon 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have unsourced but seemingly accurate descriptive prose than a two-line description and an extlink. By all means go ahead and expand these sections if you're willing and capable. Chris Cunningham 19:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, three new points:

1. Speaking from a practical point, the links add significant value and content to the article. If I'm looking at a description of a distro, I don't want to have to go to a search engine just to find the home page.
2. The links don't come even close to violating WP:LINKS#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. I've deleted link spam before, and this doesn't look anything like link spam.
3. "this isn't a place to adverise your distro" was a premature conclusion. The user that added in the links does not appear to even be a user of any of the distros is question.

- Pingveno 00:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

1. They don't "add value" because a link to a non-notable site can't be used to back up a reference to a non-notable distro. This is a chicken-egg situation which can only be remedied by an external effort to drive up notability of these distros. I'd rather this than the standard inclusionist feedback loop whereby notability is generated out of thin air.
2. Errr, they're perfect examples of #4.
3. It was a perfectly valid conclusion, if you'd followed the Ubuntu CE article history. User:Mhancoc7 is an associate of the project, and while I don't believe he's acted in any manner which is inappropriate for Wikipedia he's still invested in the process of establishing the distro.

Chris Cunningham 11:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:External_links we should not be linking to external sites from within the main body of the article. To quote the page:

"Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the "External links" section with the {{External links}} template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the {{dmoz}} template."

Try to remember folks that wikipedia is not google, its not that hard to punch in the name of the distro into google and get a valid hit.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I'll drop the issue. I still think not including the links violates common sense, but since policy is handed down to us by the gods... Pingveno 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I don't understand. The AfD for Ubuntu CE was started because of "lack of notibility". So, I add a list of links to legitimate reviews and sources including Linux.com and Linux Format magazine. Then you delete the page calling it a "link farm". How in the world could I have won this debate? Jereme Hancock, Ubuntu CE Developer, --Mhancoc7 10:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete the Ubuntu CE page. For what it's worth, I'd support the recreation of the page, on the assumption that it would quickly be expanded to a reasonable length. A lot of distros float between having their own articles and being included in lists (or deleted altogether) because their respective entries are never expanded to a point beyond stub-class. For something of no inherited notability like a Linux distribution, the usual approach of starting a stub and letting the community expand it often doesn't work. Chris Cunningham 10:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't mean you in particular. The Ubuntu CE page was at a reasonable length. It did need to be cleaned up, but the deletion seemed to be motivated by something out of our control. I do not believe it was "lack of notability" at all. So, is there antway we can get our page back? Also, I want to say that this is not about getting traffic. The Wilipedia entry made up a very small portion of our incoming traffic. --Mhancoc7 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not your problem. If you build it, they will come. Someone else will write a good article in due course. Chris Cunningham 21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious Bias

I guess Ubuntu Christian Edition should be thankful that it went through an AfD. UbuntuME was deleted sans discussion. A point that demonstrates that anti-religous bias that Wikipedia has. jonathon 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

*Yawwwwn*. More like a bias against acting as an advertising service for fledgeling Linux distributions, especially the "Ubuntu plus a dozen specialist packages" variety. Chris Cunningham 08:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well in the interest of not appearing to see this deletion as representing anti-religious bigotry are you going to place AfD notices on all the other distros with their own page and equal or less notability than Ubuntu CE?

If not I may do so myself in the interests of establishing fair and consistent treatment though I would prefer the whole thing clarified at a higher level and then applied consistently, and seen to be consistent.

I am an atheist but I do not see the treatment of Ubuntu CE as consistent, and this has got my back up just as it would if a ref showed favoritism in a football game.

It's not that I disagree that UCE should or shouldn't have a page on Wikipedia, but that the treatment should be fair, i.e. consistent. No UCE then no gNewSense for example.

I'm sure Mhancoc7 etc. would not wish to do this for the sake of pissing off the developers of the other distros but in the interest of consistency I would be prepared to take it upon myself, as a non-Christian and non Ubuntu CE user to see this issue thrashed out until there is a fair and consistent treatment one way or the other. Circsol 15:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I didn't delete it. Sheesh. Chris Cunningham 18:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm kind of amused by http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthux, http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_CE, http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Satanic_Edition.(I'm pretty sure that nobody on the respective distro teams wrote those articles.) (You can thank the person who did a speedy delete of the images on my user page for those articles --- their ability to speedy delete images that meet wiki media requirements, because of their inability to read pointed me to those articles. jonathon 01:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there any need for this page?

I don't see any need for a separate article, just for listing Ubuntu-based distros. On the Ubuntu article there is a list of distros, and here, another. I think there should be either this list on the main article, or just a link to this list there.--Khristian 02:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The page for Ubuntu (Linux distribution) is about the official Ubuntu version. This article List_of_Ubuntu-based_distributions lists,and briefly describes the offspring distributions. jonathon 06:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't really lose much if this page weren't here, but people are prone to adding their Ubuntu variants to the Ubuntu article and this page helps keep them separated. In general, non-notable and unofficial distros should be removed from Ubuntu (Linux distribution) and added here without prejudice. Chris Cunningham 08:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Imho this article should be deleted and relevant data transferred to Ubuntu (Linux distribution) and/or List of Linux distributions. Tazpa 16:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of lists, but this list has objective criteria that can be confirmed with reliable sources(which still needs to be done). It seems an encyclopedic topic. 1 != 2 16:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to have a seperate article. The article List_of_Linux_Distributions#Ubuntu-based has all of the distros listed here and more, along with a breif descripton of each one. I personally think that the more... link on the Ubuntu-based Distibutions and deriatives at the bottom of each Ubuntu page should link to that, the old article be deleted, and each of the distributions that don't have a wiki article should link to their homepage. Anyone disagree? Metroidpal45 (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing the word "Linux" in the title

The article title just says "List of Ubuntu-based distributions", though the article intro specifically says "Linux". Which is it? Nexenta OS is based on Ubuntu, though it's isn't a Linux distro. Chris Cunningham 09:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu is one form of linux as far as I understand. 1 != 2 16:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Afaik all listed distributions are linux-based (all have the linux kernel). Nexenta OS (currently unlisted?) uses Ubuntu software but is not linux nor linux-based. Tazpa 17:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Furbuntu"

A few editors have been posting up a supposed distro on this article, called "Furbuntu". From what I can find by a web search, all that exists is an idea some enthusiasts have for a distro, and a logo. The posts about it here appear to be a PR exercise to get people to join the proposed project: no actual distro is even in testing yet. Please point me at the distro if I'm mistaken though. Thanks, Technobadger (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Distro is now in testing, but its only between me and a few others, Mainly because its the first build and we are just seeing what we can and can not do. When We finally release a build that others can see, I'll let you know. We are also trying to get a website and wiki up. We are serious about this and want to see it through. Theyain Riyu (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

X-Evian

I'm removing the mention of X-Evian from this page. The X-Evian webpage [[1]] makes no mention that it is based off of Ubuntu, stating that it is based of Debian only. Underjack (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Another list of Ubuntu derivatives

There is a list of Ubuntu derivatives on Ubuntu wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DerivativeTeam/Derivatives Maybe some of them should be mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.181.224 (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A few less-notable projects

On 20 December 2007 User:Thumperward removed a few projects from the article with the comment "yet again, projects whose notability is completely unestablished save a link to their home pages have crept back in. removing per talk page". I might not have removed these myself, but IMHO it was reasonable for User:Thumperward to do so. On the other hand, I'm going to archive the removed content here on Talk in case someone wants it later.

- *UbuntuME (Ubuntu Muslim Edition) is a customized Ubuntu and Kubuntu based distro featuring Islamic software (prayer times, Quran study tool, web content filtering tool etc.) and relevant design. Kubuntu Muslim Edition is identical save for the KDE desktop environment rather than GNOME.
- * Ubuntulite is designed for use on legacy systems: old, low-specification PCs. Its slogan is Ubuntu Power for Slow Machines and it will run on a 75 MHz Pentium, or equivalent, with 32 MB or more RAM; or any PC that currently runs Windows 98. Ubuntulite features the Openbox window manager with ROX-Filer, fbpanel, menu, Kazehakase, Sylpheed, Gaim, XMMS, Abiword, Gnumeric, and mtpaint.
- * Virtuabuntu is a virtual machine for vmware based on ubuntu 7.10 designed for internet use inside windows and has the goal to let windows users get familiar with linux and open source software. There will also be a installable live cd released by the name ubuntu mini , both use icewm window manager and will have all common internet related software installed. The project and the project's website are in dutch for there is a universal forum in englisch.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've temporarily reverted the deletion of UbuntuLite. This formerly had its own article, which was merged here following this deletion discussion, and the redirect should be RFD'd before removing the merged content. I would support removal as notability hasn't been asserted, but best to follow due process in this case.

I've also removed "Ubuntu Satanic Edition", as its project pages clearly state that it's not a distro, but a set of packaged themes to be installed on top of an existing Ubuntu distro. Technobadger (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Official distributions

i do not thing Mythbuntu is an official release. just another variant Unofficial distribution.98.198.17.40 (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Zebuntu

Zebuntu redirects to this page, but it is not listed. However, zebuntu is listed on the ZETA page. Uplink3r (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed that, too. Zebuntu redirects here, but there is no mention of zebuntu anywhere on this article. Either the redirection shouldn't exist and Zebuntu be red-linked or someone should write something about it. I wonder whoever made the redirection did they bother to check the article or just saw the -buntu ending and thought it fits here?Steloukos (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The web page for Zebuntu, whose forums and info has not been updated since May 2008 indicates that the distribution is now called ZevenOS, so I am removing the link from ZETA to Zebuntu. 66.27.118.210 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Super Ubuntu

This particular distribution seems to be sprinkled throughout several articles: Zero Install, Autopackage‎, Furius ISO Mount, Reconstructor‎, and Uncomplicated Firewall‎. The article for this distro was deleted, so I removed it from this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salahx (talk • contribs) 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems "kinda notable"... one of the few with support for portable apps, and other rare features... but I have to admit the article about it needed improvement... Regarding mention in other articles, I don't think that is a problem: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_of_article_content, why exactly do you think it shoud be removed? Is it just an hoax? Or the distro is crap? I dunno... I haven't tried it yet... Jerebin (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Main issue being is other than the distro's homepage, there no mention of this distro on any of the Linux sites (which is read regularly), not even DistroWatch. I never even heard of it until here (I was cleaning up other distro-spam). I've never used it, I can't say if its good, bad, or indifferent. It does seem to exist but for now its a bit too obscure. Salahx (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just found a bunch of references, I'm not sure it that makes it "notable for inclusion", but I have a feeling it does... Jerebin (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the screenshot in the article, because it offers no additional information but and advertisement link that was "gimped" onto the screenshot. -- Nick 62.143.72.180 (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I could not care less about that, but let me just tell you that the image was not gimped by me, it was photoshoped... Hacktolive (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing distros without articles, again

As every time these are allowed back in the list grows indefinitely, serving as nothing but an advertising board, I'm going to remove all of these again. Distros which are not notable enough to receive significant third-party coverage are not notable enough for this article.

If coverage is provided in reference tags, I will redlink rather than removal. This encourages more sources to be found. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've now carried this out. Please work to establish the notability of fringe distributions before including them in this article. It is not an advertising board. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi ,chris, may i ask how to define notabillity ? What is your experience in linux ,other then ubuntu ? Have you ever compiled a kernel your self ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.64.7 (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Actually do you have any experience in linux ,at all ? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=303806 http://blondechris.com/2005/11/16/strict-mode/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.64.7 (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have questions about notability, you can check WP:N. Everything else you mention is not only superfluous... some might consider boarding on violating WP:NPA, but I suppose Chris should be the judge of that. --Falcorian ^(talk) 08:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Computing

I have removed the WikiProject tag, as this article is either a redirect or deleted. If you oppose, please restore the tag. Thank you, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 15:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)