Talk:Elementary OS

outdated es.wikipedia.org version of elementary OS

I just noticed the version of this article in es.wikipedia.org is a bit outdated and I would like someone to complete it since I suck at spanish XD Penguin330 — Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Speculative paragraph about 0.4 Loki

The whole paragraph about 0.4 is pure speculation. I removed it a few weeks ago as there was a blog post about 0.4 based on this wikipedia entry, but someone undid it, so I'm back to discuss this. The launchpad milestone is a collection of might happen blueprints and bugs. The team itself has no clear target as of yet regarding 0.4, including base distro (there were some hints of switching to Debian) and there is no way a Wikipedia paragraph should reference an more or less project-internal bug/feature tracker. If there is no objection, I would like to remove it (again). Maybe in a few weeks. Embikk (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Sorry about that, I should included the "planning stages" phrase so the paragraph would be complete. Oops Sorry! Penguin330 — Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This not what I intended. Everything in there is still speculation and not proven (because it's not true, simple as that). Everything that is not an official blog or G+ post from elementary should be considered a doubtful source as it is not official. Embikk (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, let me check a little while if there's an article about eOS 0.4 that can be tagged as a reliable source. ~User:Penguin330 —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Included apps

Excuse me if I am wrong, but aren't Maya and Noise still called Maya and Noise, just not in eOS? So the included app names should probably be Maya and Noise instead of Calendar and Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CameronNemo (talk • contribs) 02:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

They're still Maya and Noise, mate. But eOS devs are planning a general name for the base pantheon apps. - Penguin330

Being as they're still referred to as Maya and Noise in the development repos I think its safe to assume that they are the correct names, even if the elementary team decide to give them general names in the launcher. Went ahead and made the correction and added a link to Calendaring software for Maya to keep it in line with the rest - Foggalong (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Maintaining validity of article

Sup Fellow Editors who are editing here! Should we always keep track of changes weekly so we can see if they're any changes on it's launchpad repo? and also check the links if they're dead? that would help to validate some of the sources and citations here.Peace! Penguin330 (Penguin330)

Pantheon Apps

Screenshots of pantheon software

This article seriously lacks some good screenshots of the various pantheon software. It would certainly not hurt the article to have screenshots of all the versions. Personally I am rather interested in installing pantheon software in Debian/Fedora/Ubuntu/etc. then in Elementary OS. User:ScotXW^t@lk 09:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Wingpanel

Is https://launchpad.net/wingpanel written from scratch or is it a fork of the old GNOME Panel? (GNOME Panel was abandoned and replaced by GNOME Shell) User:ScotXW^t@lk 09:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Platforms

Hi,

According to the website elementary.io - the OS only runs on x86_64 (aka 64-bit) as of 0.4 Loki 32-bit was removed and no-longer used. Could x86 in the Platform section in the infobox be removed since its an unsupported version now? DarkstarCommand (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Huh?

‘…amount populating by default…’

English translation, anybody? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.156.220 (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of blanket revert on 6 January 2016

Version number sequence

Hello.

As you might have noticed, on 6 January 2016, I reverted the article to the last known good state, reverting three contributions by two editors. Here is an explanation of why:

Change	Why it was bad
"Elementary OS" in the infobox was changed to "elementary OS"	MOS:STABILITY. The article consistently uses the uppercase form already. Also, the cited sources prefer that form.
"Family" was changed from "Unix-like" to "Linux"	According to {{Infobox OS}}'s documentation, "Linux" is not a family. (I agree. It is a kernel.)
Software version number was moved from |latest_preview_version= into |latest_release_version=	Study software versioning: Any version number below 1.0 is a beta version number.
apt-get was changed to APT	APT is a disambiguation page. Please check your target links!
Working state was changed from "In beta stage" to "Current"	1. Study software versioning: Any version number below 1.0 is a beta version number. 2. "Current" is a forbidden word per WP:DATED
"based on Ubuntu" was changed to "based on current Ubuntu LTS release"	1. "Current" is a forbidden word per WP:DATED 2. This means that any and all version of Elementary OS released to this date was based on one Ubuntu version, which is wrong.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they use such versioning scheme: 0.4 Loki is stable 0.3 Freya is stable (before that it was beta), and on their 0.4.1 Loki release page they didn't say anything like "beta" or "alpha", so it's stable like 0.4. Ytret (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I know. But the fact is that software publishers keep the marketing appeal in mind when they write or talk. Still, they are developing in a world where the 0.x version number means "our software is not production-grade". Unless they publish a press release stating loud and clear that "in our software 0.x does not mean 'not production-grade'; we just love starting at 0 instead of 1". Otherwise, they can have beta within beta all they want.

Note that our infobox does not have the word "beta" in it. It says "preview". Release candidate is also a preview. I used the word "beta" loosely in my original message. Some developers, like Microsoft, never use the word "beta".

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The "Working stage" field says "In beta stage" and gives a link to an article which says "Software in the beta phase will generally have many more bugs in it than completed software". I don't think the elementary OS developers use version numbers below 1.0 to indicate that their software contains many bugs, but rather that it is being rapidly developed, or that they did not implement many featues planned for release 1.0. They did say these versions are stable (i.e. have a few bugs; see the links I gave), so why don't write this in that field? Ytret (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the elementary OS developers use version numbers below 1.0 to [...]. I would like to know the basis of your thinking; I would like to know whether I should treat it per WP:NOR or no.

They did say these versions are stable. Beta and RC are, by definition, stable. But they are not production-grade. "Stable" and "unstable" is part of the open-source development terminology where there is no "alpha stage", due to the open nature of open source. The problem is, 0.x versioning is also invented by the rapid open-source development model to mean "not production-grade".

[...] many bugs [...] You really need to part with this word; being production-grade or no, is not just a matter of bugs. There is presence of enough feature, features having proper scopes for the target market, confidence, risk assessment and presence of support program for Enterprise customers.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

<..> I would like to know whether I should treat it per WP:NOR or no. You cannot treat it as an original research since the policy of OR does not apply to talk pages (as I understood the first paragraph of WP:NOR). Actually it was my opinion that you can't apply such versioning schemes (where versions <1.0 mean "beta") to elementary OS with the only reason that literally means "it's convenient for other open source projects to use such schemes" (Still, they are developing in a world where the 0.x version number means "our software is not production-grade".).

Theoretically, I can fork an open source project and start versioning from -100.5. The version number won't mean that the software is in beta or any other stage at all unless I specify the versioning scheme. One can only assume what stage my project is in, looking solely at the version number and comparing it to other projects' version numbers. And you do assume, which is more likely to be an original research.

Beta and RC are, by definition, stable. What do you mean by stable software? I understand it as being "relatively free of bugs, as opposed to a beta versrion" [1]. That is, beta software cannot be stable because it contains many bugs, and stable software is not beta. Thus, saying "In beta stage" in the infobox contradicts with what elementary OS developers wrote in their blog, announcing the stable 0.4 and 0.3 versions.

— Ytret (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Many of your questions are a result of not reading my previous answer properly. I quote from the software versioning article:

Pre-release versions

[...]

Some systems use numerical versions less than 1 (such as 0.9), to suggest their approach toward a final "1.0" release. This is a common convention in open source software. However, if the pre-release version is for an existing software package (e.g. version 2.5), then an "a" or "alpha" may be appended to the version number. So the alpha version of the 2.5 release might be identified as 2.5a or 2.5.a.

[...]

Version 1.0 as a milestone

Proprietary software developers often start at version 1 for the first release of a program and increment the major version number with each significant update.

In contrast to this, the free-software community tends to use version 1.0 as a major milestone, indicating that the software is "complete", that it has all major features, and is considered reliable enough for general release.

In this scheme, the version number slowly approaches 1.0 as more and more bugs are fixed in preparation for the 1.0 release. The developers of MAME do not intend to release a version 1.0 of their emulator program. The argument is that it will never be truly "finished" because there will always be more arcade games. Version 0.99 was simply followed by version 0.100 (minor version 100 > 99). In a similar fashion Xfire 1.99 was followed by 1.100. After 8 years of development, eMule reached version 0.50a.

Excerpt from the Semantic Versioning 2.0.0 guide:

How should I deal with revisions in the 0.y.z initial development phase?

The simplest thing to do is start your initial development release at 0.1.0 and then increment the minor version for each subsequent release.

How do I know when to release 1.0.0?

If your software is being used in production, it should probably already be 1.0.0. If you have a stable API on which users have come to depend, you should be 1.0.0. If you’re worrying a lot about backwards compatibility, you should probably already be 1.0.0.

Excerpt from Programming Grails: Best Practices for Experienced Grails Developers by Burt Beckwith:

The initial version is 0.1. This value can be a number or a string [...] I tend to take the approach of leaving the version below 1.0 (or 1.0.0) while things are changing frequently, but try to get to 1.0 as soon as possible to indicate the plugin is stable and safe to use. There are a few Grails plugins that are quite stable but aren't yet at a version beyond 1.0, but this should be the exception.

You certainly can fork a project at v0.1 and give it v100.0, but then people will ask for versions v1.0 through v99.0, and your ability to provide technical support and a completed app experience will be put to test. If you fail, you will lose credibility and market share.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The article you quoted (Software versioning#Pre-release versions) says "This is a common convention in open source software." and gives two examples on that, but does not provide a source to the statement itself, which is considered to be an original research, as I understand. But in my opinion, it's common, yes.

I am aware that the semver gives a special meaning to versions below 1.0, but elementary OS does not use the semver. Thus, saying that the project is in beta, basing solely on the version numbers and common practice, without giving sources, is wrong.

Also, take a look at this post — you see that they are clearly stating it's a beta version; and compare to this — the difference is that the latter one is a stable version. That is, elementary OS has a stable version, which contradicts with the infobox.

— Ytret (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

So, it is WP:IDHT then. —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not the case. I understand your arguments and consider some of them wrong. Your arguments (not the exact quotes, but as I understand them):

1. Any version number below 1.0 is a beta version number and means "our software is not production-grade".
2. They are in beta unless they publish a press release stating they are not.
3. Beta and RC are stable, but not production-grade. Versions 0.x are implemented for the rapid open-source development model to mean not production-grade.

(Of course, correct me if I misunderstood them, please.) My:

1. Yes, it's true, provided that the developers use a versioning scheme that states that. elementary OS team does not use semantic versioning.
2. 0.4 Loki is stable, 0.3 Freya is stable. Do these count?
3. You are wrong that beta can be stable. It cannot be because of the definition of the stages "beta" and "stable":

Beta phase generally begins when the software is feature complete but likely to contain a number of known or unknown bugs.

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Beta

Once released, the software is generally known as a "stable release".

— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Release

2. (computing) Of software: established to be relatively free of bugs, as opposed to a beta version.

— https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stable#Adjective

The basis of my opinion that it's wrong to write "In beta stage" in the infobox is the fundamental difference between the words "beta" and "stable", as I wrote in the item #3, and the information in the official blog posts I referred to in the item #2.

— Ytret (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Previously, you were haggling about the different meaning of versioning terminology. Now you are partly commenting on what Elementary OS actually is (and partly still haggling about the different meanings of versioning terminology).

Have you actually checked Elementary OS's production offering? They have no support program (beyond a community forum) and their app center is still in Beta stage. They can set their OS version to whatever they want; it is clearly not production-grade.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Previously, you were haggling about the different meaning of versioning terminology. Now you are partly commenting on what Elementary OS actually is. I'm trying to explain you why elementary OS is not in beta stage. I've written that it has stable releases (you call them "production-grade"), to what you've answered "beta can be stable", and I've tried to explain you that it can't be.

They have no support program They don't have to, it's not a commercial project.

Also, take a look at this: https://elementaryos.stackexchange.com/ (a link from their website). Its purpose is to help users.

<..> and their app center is still in Beta stage AppCenter is in beta, but that does not mean elementary OS is in beta — to use elementary OS, you don't have to use AppCenter. There is apt for package management purposes.

Can you give a reliable source to the "In beta stage" field? (I can't find one which claims elementary OS is in beta.) In the current state it's an original research. (WP:NOR, WP:VER)

— Ytret (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is getting more and more preposterous every time you post. "They don't have to, it's not a commercial project." This is supposed to be an operating system, not a video game! If they don't have support, then I don't care if they swear 100 times that their OS is released, production-ready and stable; WP:NPOV mandates the we say it is not. An operating system without support is an operation-for-now system.

If the basis of your opinion is that it's wrong to write "In beta stage" in the infobox, you can change it to "still in development" or "not production ready".

Both the open-source development discipline and Wikipedia infobox use "Stable" stage to mean what Software release life cycle § Release describes. And clearly, when the Elementary OS people are saying "Stable", they don't mean that status.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Design Philosophy - "deeply integrated" [citation needed]

I think I'm just going to remove this line. It isn't at all true; the pantheon components are quite modular and can be used independently of the Pantheon desktop environment. It's also unclear to what this section is referring to when it uses the word "shell". This has been a buzzword ever since GNOME-Shell. The most basic Pantheon Desktop features a window manager, gala (which is easily replaceable), an applications menu, clock, and indicator panel, wingpanel (which is also replaceable), a dock application, plank (which is also replaceable, and a watchdog that keeps the desktop components runing, cerbere (which is not really required). The software suite is entirely optional.

There's also contractor, which provides some framework for applications and the desktop components to interact, but it isn't required.

There are numerous partial implementations of Pantheon out there, using Docky instead of Plank, budgie-panel instead of wingpanel, compiz or openbox in place of gala, etc. Nothing strongly holds these components together, although they are designed to work and look good together. The only thing "tightly integrated" about them is their visual design--the pantheon components and the patched and original applications in their software suite are both aesthetically and technically very streamlined--but they work just as well with other applications as any do in Linux (what Linux desktop doesn't use a multi-toolkit software suite?). 220.221.136.253 (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

About versioning in elementary OS

Since this was a hot topic of discussion up above, and sorry for the contributors that felt offended by my actions on this page – I'm kinda new to Wikipedia – but I know how elementary OS operates on its versioning scheme since I followed internal development. They actually mean 0.x as Stable for Loki and earlier, but recently, in the Juno version they've decided that it is really strange for 0.x to mean Stable, so they made it 5.0, a normal version number instead. So, I don't want to make anyone offended if my way of speaking/typing is a bit to-the-point. See you all for now.

LainsCE (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)