#Ubuntu Does Not Like Ubuntuguide.org

[madmavric]

I was hanging out int he irc #ubuntu room the other day, and was chatised for posting a link to ubuntuguide. They seem really authortarian about "their" distro and do not tolerate any alternatives. Unfortunate way of doing things in my opinion!!

Anybody know of any legitmate reason for this? They failed to supply me with one imho.

[bored2k]

*Let's see how I anwer this with no more than 3 lines while not creating hatred towards me..*
They like to think they're official Wikis are better than the U-Guide. I don't think that's the most humble thought nor the best way to appreciate such great guide (without it, a LOT of US would have -probably- turned away).

P.S. - I don't like onions. That doesn't mean you have to hate them ;).

[az]

Well, the unofficial ubuntuguide is a great effort and many people appreciate it. It is, however, a one-man-show and not always accurate.

There are a number of other projects which aim to do the same thing. The unofficial ubuntu guide is probably the most popular, though.

I have been involved in getting a forums knowledgebase together on the wiki. This knowledgebase would be more credible because everybody would be able to add to it and correct it.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/forum

It's aim would be similar to the unofficial guide, just be a lot bigger.


Insofar as irc, there are thousands of users there and here on the forums and mailling lists. You cannot say that every one of those people share the same opinion.

[rwabel]

Well, the unofficial ubuntuguide is a great effort and many people appreciate it. It is, however, a one-man-show and not always accurate.

There are a number of other projects which aim to do the same thing. The unofficial ubuntu guide is probably the most popular, though.

I have been involved in getting a forums knowledgebase together on the wiki. This knowledgebase would be more credible because everybody would be able to add to it and correct it.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/forum

It's aim would be similar to the unofficial guide, just be a lot bigger.


Insofar as irc, there are thousands of users there and here on the forums and mailling lists. You cannot say that every one of those people share the same opinion.
have you already tried to ask the man who makes the ubuntuguide to change over to the wiki or whatever official guide of ubuntu is or should be?

[az]

No. And that is a good question. The knowledgebase for the forums should not take over the Ubuntuguide, rather share the same goal. Most of the stuff in the guide comes form the forums, so my hope would be to make life easier for anyone wanting to publish an ubuntu guide like Chua Wen Kiat.

This includes the ubuntu doc team. It would be up to them to make the ubuntuguide official. I cannot speak for them. I know they are trying to shape the unofficial guide into something they can support.

Also, the Ubuntuguide has it's very own cool webiste.... not just a plonky wiki page,,,

[rwabel]

No. And that is a good question. The knowledgebase for the forums should not take over the Ubuntuguide, rather share the same goal. Most of the stuff in the guide comes form the forums, so my hope would be to make life easier for anyone wanting to publish an ubuntu guide like Chua Wen Kiat.

This includes the ubuntu doc team. It would be up to them to make the ubuntuguide official. I cannot speak for them. I know they are trying to shape the unofficial guide into something they can support.

Also, the Ubuntuguide has it's very own cool webiste.... not just a plonky wiki page,,,
I do like his website too. It would just make life easier for newbies. And you are right, the ubuntuguide is more or less a collection of good how-to's from the forum. It would be great to have 1 ressource who gathers good and correct how-to's to one side.
Doesn't matter if it stays at the ubuntuguide side or if they merge on a ubuntu wiki side.

I hope people of both side are reading that thread.

[jiyuu0]

the link that #ubuntu likes to use when talking about ubuntuguide
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUsersNetworkGuidelines

->snip from link above...
#Do NOT recommend people to use ubuntuguide.org, there are several reasons for this:
*Ubuntuguide.org presents wrong solutions, ranging from suboptimal solutions to pure regressions.
*Ubuntuguide.org is not really a guide, but a mere list of command you might enter. It gives no explanations at all
*All information on Ubuntuguide.org is present on the wiki in clearer and better form

some users might not get the solutions right from ubuntuguide, but mainly because:
-amd64/powerpc users tries to use ubuntuguide which is x86
-they tried to apt-get without editing the sources.list or apt-get update
-backports server is down
-typos mistakes by users

ubuntuguide is written with direct answers... and yes, maybe not suitable for users who likes to read a lot and needs explanations.

btw, in the "General Notes':
For any feedbacks, suggestions, discussions and bugs report to the author, please post comments: Here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=112654)
*There's a purpose for that thread... (yes, inputs and corrections)

>makes the ubuntuguide to change over to the wiki

if not mistaken, the doc team has ported ubuntuguide into FAQGuide and are working on it.

it has pros and cons.

pros:
-many ppl can get involved
-better support as it's not a one man show anymore
-more free time for me ;-)

cons:
-they have modified it and put in lots of explanations.
-e.g. java, they will ask you to use the wiki way (one whole page of reading and so many proposed solutions)
-backports is removed
-e.g. if you want w32codecs, they will ask you to go to mplayer site and download the w32codecs and then download+extract yourself, rather than just apt-get install w32codecs from backports

i've got nothing against FAQGuide/wiki, but i like ubuntuguide just the way it is...

[bored2k]

cons:
-e.g. java, they will ask you to use the wiki way (one whole page of reading and so many proposed solutions)
-e.g. if you want w32codecs, they will ask you to go to mplayer site and download the w32codecs and then download+extract yourself, rather than just apt-get install w32codecs from backports That is true. The Java installation wiki, although very informative, has way too many options that serve mostly to disorient begginers with all that text. Why not be a good boy and point everyone to the perfect backports?


i've got nothing against FAQGuide/wiki, but i like ubuntuguide just the way it is...I'm with you. Ubuntuguide owns.

[Rory]

It seems there are active members of the Ubuntu team that needlessly tear down ubuntuguide rather than helping to improve it. The wiki and ubuntuguide can coexist and can do so peacefully. That peaceful coexistence would be more consistent with the philosophy of Ubuntu, whereas their attacks are antithetical to the Ubuntu spirit. Disappointing to see, especially as these attackers are leaders in the Ubuntu community. It's a real turn off of this distro.

Certainly, the maintainer of ubuntuguide does not attack the maintainers of the wiki and remains very respectful, even though the wiki is a poorly designed labyrinth that could use a remedial course in being concise and focusing on solutions.

It's ironic that the maintainer of ubuntu guide engenders the spirit of Ubuntu, whereas leaders in the Ubuntu community who attack him do not.

Also note, the maintainer of ubuntuguide maintains a thread on this forum. People go there, make suggestions to improve the guide and he incorporates many of those suggestions, often that day!!!

He is spending his time trying to create a useful resource for people coming to this distro for the first time. Does that not merit restraint by leaders in the Ubuntu community who attack him? Or, is their way the only correct way.

I would not have stayed with Ubuntu, as a newbie, without ubuntuguide. The Ubuntu wiki doesn't give give me the answers I need, in the way I need them. ubuntuguide does. For others, the opposite may be true. Perhaps a dose of humility and mutual respect would be useful for the wiki folks who attack ubuntuguide.

[TravisNewman]

"That peaceful coexistence would be more consistent with the philosophy of Ubuntu, whereas their attacks are antithetical to the Ubuntu spirit."

I normally hate it when people evoke the Ubuntu philosophy to prove a point, but this time I think you've made a valid one.

"He is spending his time trying to create a useful resource for people coming to this distro for the first time. Does that not merit restraint by leaders in the Ubuntu community who attack him? Or, is their way the only correct way. "

Here, however, we need some distinction. It's not Ubuntu leaders that are attacking him necessarily (though if I'm mistaken here, please correct me). And as far as in the question about whether their way is the only correct way, no, HOWEVER, there is a need to keep things consistent with the Debian way of doing things so as not to break things. As far as I know, however, that's already been done, so I don't know why they're still wanting to change things. The backports has been approved, so I don't know why they took backports out of their wiki version of the guide. It's a big murky so far.

[jiyuu0]

Here, however, we need some distinction. It's not Ubuntu leaders that are attacking him
i don't think is the leaders


The backports has been approved, so I don't know why they took backports out of their wiki version of the guide.
true, how many minutes do you think a new to ubuntu person needs to get his java, multimedia setup without using backports?

e.g. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Java
*7 methods/ways to get java installed, which should i choose?

i would normally advice people, if after reading ubuntuguide and they want to know/understand more, goto wiki, ubuntuforums or get a linux book for better understanding.

ubuntuguide will only help to get the job done or as a reference

[gammyhand]

"That peaceful coexistence would be more consistent with the philosophy of Ubuntu, whereas their attacks are antithetical to the Ubuntu spirit."

I normally hate it when people evoke the Ubuntu philosophy to prove a point, but this time I think you've made a valid one.

"He is spending his time trying to create a useful resource for people coming to this distro for the first time. Does that not merit restraint by leaders in the Ubuntu community who attack him? Or, is their way the only correct way. "

Here, however, we need some distinction. It's not Ubuntu leaders that are attacking him necessarily (though if I'm mistaken here, please correct me). And as far as in the question about whether their way is the only correct way, no, HOWEVER, there is a need to keep things consistent with the Debian way of doing things so as not to break things. As far as I know, however, that's already been done, so I don't know why they're still wanting to change things. The backports has been approved, so I don't know why they took backports out of their wiki version of the guide. It's a big murky so far.
Personally I have not used the Wiki. I am a windows Ex Pat of two weeks and the ubuntuguide was invaluable to me. I don't know what option I should choose from the many that are apparently there in the wiki for each piece of software and I just want to get everything working as painlessly as possible.

I get the impression that the wiki people are hardcore linux users that would do as much on the command line as possible. This seems a bit strange to me as ubuntu is distributed as an easy to use package. Surely to provide software that installs as painlessly as possible and then recommend noobs like myself have to do a lot of research and go through a lot of effort to install stuff from the repositories is counter productive?

My take on it is put into a synopsis below, and I do feel that bashing the ubuntuguide is a bit petty by those who see it as inferior. It is not inferior, but aimed at a different market.

ubuntuguide: the one you want if you want to USE ubuntu.

wiki: the one you one if you want to LEARN linux internals.

[aysiu]

Frankly, I find the Ubuntu Guide most helpful to me as newbie because:

1. I don't need a lot of explanations. I do just want to know how to do things. By doing them, I learn.

2. It's a long document all on one page--far easier to search than the Wiki.

3. Related to #2, I don't find the Wiki easy to navigate at all.

4. I've never found anything incorrect about it. Of course, I don't use all the commands in there...

[sapo]

i don't think is the leaders


true, how many minutes do you think a new to ubuntu person needs to get his java, multimedia setup without using backports?

e.g. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Java
*7 methods/ways to get java installed, which should i choose?

i would normally advice people, if after reading ubuntuguide and they want to know/understand more, goto wiki, ubuntuforums or get a linux book for better understanding.

ubuntuguide will only help to get the job done or as a reference


Thats true.. ubuntuguide is usefull cause is very quick and almost everything works without problems and questions...

They can say "Ubuntu guide is a one man's doing", but i prefer this way... as long as it works.. if ubuntu guide had 3 or 5 choices for each app i think that it would be more confusing than helpfull...

i m always advising my friends to install stuff using the "ubuntuguide way".

When they say: "i m gonna compile MPlayer in my ubuntu box".

I say: "STOP IT! go to: http://ubuntuguide.org/#mplayer and do as it is said there.."

why? cause if he follows ubuntuguide i know how he installed.. so if he asks me "how do i remove the mplayer" i ll be able to say right away what he needs to do..

Ubuntu guide is a VERY VERY usefull thing to begginners.. if ubuntu guide didnt exist.. i would have to explain the same thing at least 5 times a day.. i have alread memorized a lot of ubuntuguide links.. when they ask: "How do i install the divx codec?" -> http://ubuntuguide.org/#codecs

and to jiyuu0, i really want to say THANK YOU for making ubuntu guide :grin:

[rwabel]

The problem is and will resist as long as the wiki wants to put everything in detail and with all options and remove important things like backports.
People just want to write some commands in the console and have it work. I agree if the way of doin it is completely wrong, that it has to be changed or at least mentioned.

Also a wiki should be easy to read. Important points should go there and if someone needs detailed explanation then a further link should provide it.

I also don't like that it's a guideline to not mention ubuntuguide!
Even though somewhere in the wiki I've seen a link to ubuntuguide, as an external guide. They have just added to not ask question about the guide. That's a correct way in my opinion.

It should still be the users choice if he wants to compile and spend hours of playing around to have mplayer installed or just go the easy way. Both ways should be mentioned.

I love the wiki idea, that everyone can contribute. The problem with the ubuntuguide is, that if I have a howto it's not easy to make it appear. I like to have several choice as it is in the wiki, they deschribe why to choose which way.

But hell it's too complicated. You get terribly lost in the wiki. In the multimedia section somwhere it's written:
f you want musepack support and you have Hoary-Extras install bmp-musepack.
But from where does a newbie know how to get hoary-extras?

PLEASE ubuntu wiki guys:
Please remove the guideline about ubuntuguide!
make the wiki easy and readable

[Leif]

No offense to the wiki, but I'll stick with the guide, thank you very much. The wiki is difficult to navigate, and doesn't provide a one-stop place where I can search for most things easily. Also, the guide is a great resource to show to new people because they can find not just the answer they were looking for, but lots more in one handy place.

Keep up the great work jiyuu0.

[Hex]

Here's an email I sent (also posted on the ubuntu guide thread):



Here, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUsersNetworkGuidelines, you wrote:

"

1. Do NOT recommend people to use ubuntuguide.org, there are several reasons for this:

* Ubuntuguide.org presents wrong solutions, ranging from suboptimal solutions to pure regressions.
* Ubuntuguide.org is not really a guide, but a mere list of command you might enter. It gives no explanations at all
* All information on Ubuntuguide.org is present on the wiki in clearer and better form

"

I am a new user to linux and just moved to ubuntu from windows. I have little to no experience with linux.

The first thing I did is browse the ubuntu wiki. As much of a great distribution this is, the wiki helped me solve almost none of my problems - whether lack of information, poor written explanations or badly organized as a whole.

My next step was to browse the ubunto forum, where the chaos is even oh a higher level. And even so, it was more useful than the wiki.

Then I discovered the unofficial ubuntu guide, ubuntuguide.org. It had all the information a windows user might need to completely switch to ubuntu. Mind you, I spent several days trying to achieve something, that I managed in a couple of hours following the ubuntu guide. I learned to use simple commands like "wget", "apt-get", "dpkg -i", etc, and I learned to appreciate ubuntu a lot more (and the linux environment as a whole).

Ubuntuguide.org does not represent wrong solutions, as everything there works. I don't care whether you think the solutions are "wrong, ranging from suboptimal to pure regressions" - I am a desktop user without any programming skills whatsoever and I just want to click and use. You were not there to help me, nor was your official wiki. Truth is, I have a perfectly working operating system at the moment.

Ubuntuguide.org, contrary to what you say ("... is not really a guide, but a mere list of commands you can enter") is a great guide, and the list of commands you mentioned, helped me set up my PC fast. I even have some idea how to use these commands.

Ubuntuguide.org presents the information in a clearer, a lot more practical form than the wiki. Again, as I desktop user, I don't want to read tons of information, I want an operating system that works, and I want it set up and operational as fast as possible - the ubuntu guide provides this priceless option.

Here, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUsersNetworkGuidelines, you wrote:

"Whether you are helping out on IRC, the mailing lists or the forums, always stay friendly to people, especially if you see they are new to linux."

Dennis, I feel so annoyed/mad with your post on the wiki, that I am considering switching back from Ubuntu, an operating system which I found to be great, mostly because of the really good attitude of it's users/supporters and the open mindedness of the project. You are trying to hinder the work of the ubuntu guide, which is trying to help exactly linux newbies like me.

I say, get rid of the wiki and expand the ubuntu guide! That's my vote, and I believe the vote of the many other people reading the great ubuntu guide!

--
Best wishes,
Darin
Bulgaria


No reply whatsoever. In any case, I believe that ubuntu folks feel somewhat threatened by an unofficial guide, that is gaining more popularity than the wiki - a guide that is not theirs to control.

I can explain their action in a way. Think about it, you are creating a distro, but people don't turn to you for support but to "some" unofficial guide, that they can't control. Ubuntu starts to resemble Google more every day.

Anyway, I second Leif, keep up the great work, jiyuu0!

[Kvark]

The optimal newbie help would be a FAQ database. Containing potentially thousands of questions and answers. Where you can browse by sections, keywords or text searches.

All the answers should be the easiest way, not the optimal way. Presented in both GUI and CLI ways when possible, never CLI only unless there is no GUI way. Without uneccessary explanations about background mechanics, but maybe with links to learn more.

The database should be moderated. Anyone can submit a question (newbie who has a question that is not yet covered). Anyone can browse among unanswered questions and sumbit an answer. But the answer is not taken live until a moderator confirms that it is indeed the easiest answer.



and about the wiki hating the guide...

3. Do NOT recommend people to use ubuntuguide.org, there are several reasons for this:

* Ubuntuguide.org presents wrong solutions, ranging from suboptimal solutions to pure regressions.
* Ubuntuguide.org is not really a guide, but a mere list of command you might enter. It gives no explanations at all
* All information on Ubuntuguide.org is present on the wiki in clearer and better form

When a newbie has a question about a problem, the answer should be the easiest way to solve the problem.

The optimal way may be to recompile kernel while the easiest way is a cheap hack any experienced user would frown upon. Tell the optimal way and the newbie will go back to windows. Tell the easiest way and the newbie will be happy.

The optimal way is thus the wrong way, while the easiest way is the right way.


A newbie wants to know what should be done to solve the problem. Not explanations about the underlaying mechanics. The clearest and best form of answer is thus just a list of commands.


Also, pointing newbies to the backports is a must. Ideally the backports should recieve the same treatment as universe 'included in sources.list but disabled by default'.

[Bite_me_Bill]

Short, sweet and to the point.

The ease of needed information and how-to has brought Ubuntu to where it is with new Linux users today. The Ubuntuguide it's self has played an important role in this. To bad mouth the guide and not to refer new users to the guide to help get them on their way will without a doubt shoot Ubuntu in the foot. The Wiki is set up like a detailed manual with an overwelming amount of information. For the new users this is too much information and too much information will cause confusion. And confusion will lead these new users straight back to their comfortable little windows worlds. Does the Ubuntu community, leaders, and developers really want that?

Give the new users the choice and don't bad mouth one or the other. Let them get comfortable with their new journey. As time progresses they will want more information and this will lead them to the wiki. The wiki, guide, forums, and IRC Channel are all tools for the ubuntu community. Use these tools to build with. If there is a problem on the ubuntuguide then take the steps to correct the problem not create another problem. If the webmaster of the guide is a single person then the leaders of Ubuntu should contact him and ask that he take the help that they can offer. If they still won't then create something off the same base and the guide and make it the official guide. Users come in different levels give each level the tools they need and are comfortable with.

I don't know how many people have given an Ubuntu system to a middle aged windows user and said here's your new system. You show them the tools that Ubuntu offers to help them. I have done this. Gave the wife an Ubuntu system and told her that it's hers and that she will have to set it up and run it the way she wanted. Showed her the wiki and got that dumb founded look and then showed her the guide and she smiled. And is now running and administering her system with easy and starting to get more into it. It's still funny hearing her recommend Ubuntu and Linux to others.




"Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, give a man a pole and feed him for life."

[rwabel]

"Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, give a man a pole and feed him for life."

how true!! First you need to have some fishes to survive, before you can start fishing with your fishing rod :-)

[crashtest]

I don't understand why anyone could possibly be opposed to the unoffical ubuntu guide. No one should have to choose between the guide, or the wiki - why on earth can't we use both?

The statement found on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUsersNetworkGuidelines
which says "#Do NOT recommend people to use ubuntuguide.org, there are several reasons for this: *Ubuntuguide.org presents wrong solutions, ranging from suboptimal solutions to pure regressions." is puzzling. Ubuntuguide.org may indeed contain errors, but the person who built the site on his own has done an incredible job, and contributed greatly to the Ubuntu community. Does anyone imagine if errors were pointed out to this person he would refuse to make corrections???? This is clearly absurd.

[darkmatter]

I don't understand why anyone could possibly be opposed to the unoffical ubuntu guide. No one should have to choose between the guide, or the wiki - why on earth can't we use both?

I agree.

Though not a newbie to Linux, I still enjoy learning all there is to learn about this great platform. However, I'm also the type of person who prefers to have his system up and running (and relatively well equipped) as soon as possible. For that purpose the guide (and the unofficial CD) is invaluable.

[az]

It is wrong to say that the doc team does not promote the spirit of ubuntu because they discourage the use of the unofficial guide. They have real problems with it and seem to be working towards improving it. In any team it is normal to have dissagreements.

As for the wiki being hard to navigate, that is up to all of us to fix. It is very easy to create a knowledgebase that has the same format as the ubuntuguide. Just do it!

On the forum-wiki delta, there is even a FrontDesk page for users to dump their idea. The purpose is for another use to pick it up and format it properly.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/forum/FrontDesk

The advantage to the wiki-based knowledgebase is that it ican be more accurate. It can be overseen by the doc team. Any work derived from this can become more credible because of that.

I have been saying this for more than a month now, but there will soon be a contest to promete the forum-wiki delta (the knowledgebase). Prizes will be handed out to the users who contribute the most to the site.

Please stay tuned...

In the meantime, I encourage to you poke around the forum-wiki delta and improve it.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/forum

[rwabel]

@azz
that's exactely what I was looking for. A slick howto wiki where all can put their own howto's. I like the idea with the frontdesk to put ideas.

I hope one can also put information which aren't from the forum!

[brickbat]

Hi,

If it wasn't for ubuntuguide.org I doubt that I would have had the patience to stick with Ubuntu in particular and possibly Linux in general. This guy should be supported - not attacked.

my 2 cents,
bb

[az]

Hi,

If it wasn't for ubuntuguide.org I doubt that I would have had the patience to stick with Ubuntu in particular and possibly Linux in general. This guy should be supported - not attacked.

my 2 cents,
bb

Who is attacking him?

Is it a personal attack or critticism?

[jiyuu0]

it really seems like ppl at the forums like ubuntuguide and at the #ubuntu a few are repeatingly trashin it

i've been tryin to observe what is happening in #ubuntu... this had been happening for a couple of days already... part of the conversation from few minutes ago.

Mr. A: can someone help me set up a samba server?

Mr. B: there is a walk through at www.ubuntuguide.org

Mr. C: Please do not advise people to use ubuntuguide. Advise https://wiki.ubuntu.com instead. Item 3 on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUsersNetworkGuidelines explains why.

Mr. A thank you Mr. B

Mr. D: so... what's so bad about ubuntuguide?

Mr. E: don't use ubuntuguide, ever

Mr. C: read the page behind that link...

Mr. C: ubuntuguide is, like, a set of instructions with no explanation. Please search the wiki instead, http://wiki.ubuntu.com. Reasons not to advise people to use the guide are here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUsersNetworkGuidelines

Mr. F: should I use the ubuntuguide if I want a set of instructions without an ex[planation?

Mr. E: if you want a set of instructions without explanation then you shouldn't be using Linux.

Mr. F: really, what if I like it?

Mr. E: if you don't want to learn how to do something than you are not fit to be in the linux world.

Mr. F: I mean, if I like Linux, but still want a set of instructions with no explanation cause I cant remember a syntax?

Mr. E: what is ubuntuguide

Mr. C: Please do not advise people to use ubuntuguide. Advise https://wiki.ubuntu.com instead. Item 3 on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUsersNetworkGuidelines explains why.

[jiyuu0]

i'm quite impressed with how they tend to do support in the #ubuntu...

another case...

i saw, one user wanting to install java... and thanks to those ppl he was having so much "fun" getting java to be install using their method

with their chat instructions... he was asked to java wiki

after reading for few minutes... he came back doesn't knowing which method to choose (so many methods in it to choose from)...

so they told him to go to java web site to download the .bin file... he got stuck at sun's website

few minutes passed... he now figured out and downloaded .bin file... so he came back

to cut their story short, he then got prob using java-package, fakeroot, apt-get, repository... story goes on...

by now he was referred to X number of wiki links

are they really trying to help or just making ppls life more enjoyable or educational?

wouldn't it be easier to point to ubuntuguide.org then if the users needs help or explanation... just answer em

rather... they prefer to trash ubuntuguide... i'm gettin sick of some ppl in #ubuntu

if someone mentioned about ubuntuguide.org... some ppl will just point them https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUsersNetworkGuidelines...

and if asked why it sucked... they say point number 3 in the wiki says it all

it hurts to see something like tat happens... :(

[Quest-Master]

I've seen this happen a LOT in #ubuntu now, especially with ops sometimes crying foul, but I've been around that channel and this community for a long time, and frankly, I'm going to give the one in need what I think would be the best resource for him, not whatever everyone is saying is official and what not. I mean, come on, these forums weren't even official at one point in time! :)

Ubuntuguide has been a miracle to everyone I've passed it around to. All of their questions are usually answered there, and they don't need explanations, as with hands-on experience, they see what's going on. :)

[brim4brim]

Mr. E: if you want a set of instructions without explanation then you shouldn't be using Linux.

Mr. E: if you don't want to learn how to do something than you are not fit to be in the linux world.


These lines should never appear anywhere to a user moving to Linux. These language is inappropriate to use towards anyone. You don't tell someone they are not fit to use something because they don't want to do it your way. That's what Open Source should really be about. Inclusion of everyone. Knowing these lines have been used toward anyone using Ubuntu or just Linux in general annoy's me :-x

If the unofficial guide has errors thats fine, we shouldn't be recommending it really until the glitches are worked out but when you find a glitch report it same as any program and improve the guide and don't just slam it and say don't use it and if you want a user friendly guide you shouldn't be using Linux.

Any Linux user that agrees with the above statment needs to realise that most of the world is non-technical and couldn't give a sh*t about how it works they just want it to work and be easy. Personally I enjoy reading about how things work but that's not for everyone, same as anything else in this world.

In short I'm disgusted at the above comments made

[Kvark]

Indeed, I've visited #ubuntu a couple times and it is clearly a help channel for experienced linux users, for newbies it is a big mistake to go there. Thats probably why they like the wiki, it is also for experienced users.

Perhaps there should be a newbie friendly channel, #ubuntuhelp or something. Where they give the easiest solution instead of the optimal. For example on the java question they would say "install the package called JRE with synaptic". And where you definately get a kick-ban with reason: "if you hate newbies, stay away from the newbie help channel" if you say things like...

Mr. E: if you don't want to learn how to do something than you are not fit to be in the linux world.



I think all help things needs to be split into three parts, one is the commercial support from canonical, the other two would be... two ubuntu forums, two ubuntu channels, two ubuntu guides/wikis, one newbie friendly and one for advanced elitist zealots.

[rwabel]

I was a shocked while reading the postings from jiyuu0!!
Those people on #ubuntu should understand that newbies first want to make someting work!!
After that they often understand or search for explanations. Same was for me. I can remember in the early days how complicated it was to install java. Ubuntuguide shows a easy way. I understand that other prefers other ways.

Stop the hates and help each other out. Don't blame people if they aren't freak enough to want to know everything that's going on.

Linux isn't anymore what it was years ago. That's why people come over and also use Linux. People who used WINDOWS, they tend to know how to do and don't bother (yet) why!

As azz mentioned some postings earlier, there is the Forum Wiki (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/forum)! I've started to put howtos in that wiki. I like their idea. And it has a good structure. Even though I don't like its name.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to take some of the ubuntuguide howto's to the forum wiki. Or would that be a problem, because they aren't all from the forum?

[az]

The #ubuntu channel is moderated, no? There should be a policy about blatant offensive remarks like that. It is contrary to the code of conduct. There should be a complaint made to the CoC (Community Council)

Insofar as porting stuff to the wiki, so long as it is not copyrighted material, you can put what you want. If you copy the guide to the forum-wiki delta, people can play around with it, tweak it and improve the content.


What is great is that you can have ideas for Breezy on the pages, too. As more and more people use Breezy, the help content can already be there when it is released and Jiyuu0 can cut and past back the new Breezy stuff for the next version of the Ubuntuguide... If that is what he wants to do...

[alred]

i guess http://ubuntuguide.org/ is the guide that people really need , even other non-linux OS hardly own a guide like that , it a one man show , just like linux ...

[alred]

forget to mention , i hope that http://ubuntuguide.org/ remains an individual project , maybe improvise it with unrelated links to further advance and in-depth under-the-hood know-how if users somehow need them ...

[rwabel]

i guess http://ubuntuguide.org/ is the guide that people really need , even other non-linux OS hardly own a guide like that , it a one man show , just like linux ...

Linux isn't a one man show! And it's better to have several people working on it

[alred]

quote :: "Linux isn't a one man show! And it's better to have several people working on it"

true , agree wih you :)
but if you think you can create and provide something which is timely and badly needed for years by many , why not crack up your own "one man show" for the benefits of the community , many times it works better and more effecient this way ...


just my thoughts ...

[az]

IAs azz mentioned some postings earlier, there is the Forum Wiki (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/forum)! I've started to put howtos in that wiki. I like their idea. And it has a good structure. Even though I don't like its name.


The project is really young. Pick a new name. Start a new thread and make a poll, if you want. There is no reason to keep the current name if people think it sucks.

[alred]

forget to mention , if somehow http://ubuntuguide.org/ comes in nice printed form , it may help a little bit more in spreading linux if not ubuntu ...

just my thoughts ...

[rwabel]

why not crack up your own "one man show" for the benefits of the community , many times it works better and more effecient this way ...

that's true, often it's much efficient to have one person doing it in the beginning. But later after it makes that other can contribute and changes!

[alred]

quote :: "that's true, often it's much efficient to have one person doing it in the beginning. But later after it makes that other can contribute and changes!"

hmm ... if somehow i know what is good and badly needed , i will know who to let in and let us contribute and build together , as for others , i won't reject either , maybe as friends of the project so that they can move on doing other similar things for the community , in a sense good for divesity for the similar-minded ...

[Kvark]

quote :: "Linux isn't a one man show! And it's better to have several people working on it"

true , agree wih you :)
but if you think you can create and provide something which is timely and badly needed for years by many , why not crack up your own "one man show" for the benefits of the community , many times it works better and more effecient this way ...


just my thoughts ...

One man shows may be more efficient for some things. But there is the problem of trust. If it is just one man or one company in on it then you must trust that one man or company to not make any mistakes. In this case, what if the ubuntuguide guy doesn't know that a solution will screw up on soundcard X and you follow those instructions and have soundcard X... ](*,)


The most trustable model is that anyone, trusted or not, can contribute while a small trusted core group moderates and double checks, as long as the proccess is open and transperant to anyone to check it.

[alred]

One man shows may be more efficient for some things. But there is the problem of trust. If it is just one man or one company in on it then you must trust that one man or company to not make any mistakes. In this case, what if the ubuntuguide guy doesn't know that a solution will screw up on soundcard X and you follow those instructions and have soundcard X...
The most trustable model is that anyone, trusted or not, can contribute while a small trusted core group moderates and double checks, as long as the proccess is open and transperant to anyone to check it.

yup , as long as that open and transperant proccess do not degenerated into "agreements" or "in-roads" being made out of coutersy and led to results which are bloated and kind of over-doing it , then it's ok ....

as for mistakes done , i guess if we allow users opinioned comments and feedbacks but not necessarily must be accepted , things will get better eventually , no point claiming which model is the fairest or the most trustable , most importantly it works ....

as for the problem of trust , it really depends on what people need and what people are looking for actually ...


just my thoughts ...

[rider343]

The ubuntuguide.org is made with a fine and hard work...
The ubuntuguide have answers for most dobts...
The ubuntuguide is better and more easy then wiki...

The ubuntuguide is GREAT!!! :)

[aysiu]

One man shows may be more efficient for some things. But there is the problem of trust. If it is just one man or one company in on it then you must trust that one man or company to not make any mistakes. Actually, from what other people have said (and from my own experience), the mistakes aren't the big issue. The problem with one-man operations is what happens if the one man leaves... is someone else going to take over? Will the site just shut down?

A lot of discussions at the Mepis forums tackle these issues. What if Warren abandons Mepis? Then what happens? Do we trust him to entrust it to someone else, or does the project just suddenly stop developing?

[RastaMahata]

UbuntuGuide is awesome. I was able to enable DMA on my DVD rom without any problems thanks to it.
Everytime I try to chat in #ubuntu, I see people mocking at newbie questions. Last time I logged in because my HDD crashed, all the help i got was "Your HDD died" "Your PC sucks" "Look at him, crying like his dog just died"... I replied "Actually, my dog DID die recently, and I'm just asking for help, so stfu", and the admin warned me about banning me!

GRREAT community you have there!... I'll stay in the forums, thank you.

[rwabel]

UbuntuGuide is awesome. I was able to enable DMA on my DVD rom without any problems thanks to it.
Everytime I try to chat in #ubuntu, I see people mocking at newbie questions. Last time I logged in because my HDD crashed, all the help i got was "Your HDD died" "Your PC sucks" "Look at him, crying like his dog just died"... I replied "Actually, my dog DID die recently, and I'm just asking for help, so stfu", and the admin warned me about banning me!

GRREAT community you have there!... I'll stay in the forums, thank you.
I agree, the wiki doesn't look very neat at the moment. And it's not at all easy to navigate.Gentoo wiki is there much better. But I'm sure, I hope, they bring a good structure in it (once).

@your story is unbelievable. I'm not very often on the IRC, but until now I've only heard good stuff about it. That's really a bit. The problem with forums is, that it takes sometimes a while to get an answer. When you need it desperately you need to go to the IRC.

[bored2k]

UbuntuGuide is awesome. I was able to enable DMA on my DVD rom without any problems thanks to it.
Everytime I try to chat in #ubuntu, I see people mocking at newbie questions. Last time I logged in because my HDD crashed, all the help i got was "Your HDD died" "Your PC sucks" "Look at him, crying like his dog just died"... I replied "Actually, my dog DID die recently, and I'm just asking for help, so stfu", and the admin warned me about banning me!

GRREAT community you have there!... I'll stay in the forums, thank you.
That's why I try to stay as away from IRC as I can (I too got a similar experience, not on any other Distro channel, on _our_ channel -wich is why I came running to the forums and stayed here-). Point could not be any more clear: UbuntuGuide is a valuable addition to the Ubuntu documentation (unofficial or not, at least right now its the best we got) and we would probably have a couple of thousand users less using Ubuntu if it wasn't because of that Guide. Sure, the Wikis are good and could be (and probably will be) great (with Azz taking care of them), but the UGuide is the most firm staple we have ever had. It can easily compete with the forums IMO.

And true, a forum reply is slower, but you eventually -most of the time- get very good and elaborate responses, not just a rushed (I think you can do X).

*drops his two cents*

[aysiu]

we would probably have a couple of thousand users less using Ubuntu if it wasn't because of that Guide. I'd be one of those couple of thousand. I was very frustrated with Ubuntu before finding that guide!

Here's the real problem with the Wiki. I go there, and one of the first things I see is "User Documentation." Oh, I think, That's probably where I'll find some good stuff on what to do. When I click on that, it takes me to a page with all of this cryptic (well, to a new user, anyway) stuff about knoppixinstall and sargeinstall. So, I finally scroll down to what looks like it might be helpful to a new user, the first link under "documentation," which is this

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/documentation/

And where does that take me?

To this message:
We are in the process of restructuring our help system. Please consult the wiki for FAQs, How-Tos, Tutorials and other sorts of documentation for Ubuntu (wiki.ubuntu.com). There you can create more documentation, improve the existing documentation or help to translate these docs into your own language.

Great. I'll stick with the Ubuntu Guide any day.

[rwabel]

I'd be one of those couple of thousand. I was very frustrated with Ubuntu before finding that guide!

Here's the real problem with the Wiki. I go there, and one of the first things I see is "User Documentation." Oh, I think, That's probably where I'll find some good stuff on what to do. When I click on that, it takes me to a page with all of this cryptic (well, to a new user, anyway) stuff about knoppixinstall and sargeinstall. So, I finally scroll down to what looks like it might be helpful to a new user, the first link under "documentation," which is this

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/documentation/

And where does that take me?

To this message:
We are in the process of restructuring our help system. Please consult the wiki for FAQs, How-Tos, Tutorials and other sorts of documentation for Ubuntu (wiki.ubuntu.com). There you can create more documentation, improve the existing documentation or help to translate these docs into your own language.

Great. I'll stick with the Ubuntu Guide any day.
I 100% agree with you!!! That's the main problem of the wiki. If you comapre it with the one from gentoo for example! That's a great wiki.
It's up to all uf us to tidy it up somehow. I really hope that it gets structured

[Bite_me_Bill]

Looking at the Wiki and reading the first page I was on I have to ask WTH is a "scrion"?

[az]

Looking at the Wiki and reading the first page I was on I have to ask WTH is a "scrion"?

"section"

A typo that I just fixed. Thanks for your contribution!

[Ju.]

I don't understand why anyone could possibly be opposed to the unoffical ubuntu guide. No one should have to choose between the guide, or the wiki - why on earth can't we use both?




Exactly !

I see a third way : since the ubuntuguide can answer quickly to most of the questions around for a new user, but it doesn't explain 'How it actually works' ; it could be nice to have on each answer of the guide (when accurate) a link "Want to know more ?" * pointing to the appropriate page on the wiki.

I think when an updated french version of the start guide will be online, we will do that.


* my tribute to Starship Troopers ;-)

The main goal of any doc for Ubuntu is to have happy users, not to train linux guru.
If they want to know how it works they should be one click close to information.

If you think an answer in the startguide is potentially dangerous for the system just drop a note to Jiyuu0 on the dedicated thread, as far as I know he is very nice and polite ;-)

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/conduct is a very good page too.

<<
Be respectful. The Ubuntu community and its members treat one another with respect. Everyone can make a valuable contribution to Ubuntu. We may not always agree, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack. It's important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We expect members of the Ubuntu community to be respectful when dealing with other contributors as well as with people outside the Ubuntu project, and with users of Ubuntu.
>>

I know the wiki page was only about not recommanding the use of the guide, but still there is true on the wiki post this is not a good way to deal with work of another member of the community.

[rwabel]

Exactly !

I see a third way : since the ubuntuguide can answer quickly to most of the questions around for a new user, but it doesn't explain 'How it actually works' ; it could be nice to have on each answer of the guide (when accurate) a link "Want to know more ?" * pointing to the appropriate page on the wiki.

I think when an updated french version of the start guide will be online, we will do that.


* my tribute to Starship Troopers ;-)

The main goal of any doc for Ubuntu is to have happy users, not to train linux guru.
If they want to know how it works they should be one click close to information.

If you think an answer in the startguide is potentially dangerous for the system just drop a note to Jiyuu0 on the dedicated thread, as far as I know he is very nice and polite ;-)

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/conduct is a very good page too.

<<
Be respectful. The Ubuntu community and its members treat one another with respect. Everyone can make a valuable contribution to Ubuntu. We may not always agree, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners. We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to turn into a personal attack. It's important to remember that a community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We expect members of the Ubuntu community to be respectful when dealing with other contributors as well as with people outside the Ubuntu project, and with users of Ubuntu.
>>

I know the wiki page was only about not recommanding the use of the guide, but still there is true on the wiki post this is not a good way to deal with work of another member of the community.
On the wiki they even mention the ubuntuguide as external guide. I think they don't trash the ubuntuguide in general, there are obviously some people there who have a problem.

[mattheweast]

This is an important thread, I'm glad its been started. However I am convinced that what we have here is a problem in communication that can easily be solved. Some points I would like to make.

First, I don't think it is in doubt that the guide at ubuntuguide.org is an excellent resource. Again, I don't think anyone believes that the wiki is a better resource: it is important to remember that the wiki is NOT official documentation, and while many pages are extremely good and useful, others are not. An example of the former would be the page on Restricted Formats (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RestrictedFormats), an example of the latter (as has already been mentioned in this thread) is the page about Installing Java (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Java).

The point is here that the documents have different pros and cons. The disadvantage of the ubuntuguide.org guide is that it doesn't explain the consequences of certain actions (for example adding backports without pinning the repository) and allow the users to make a choice. Whenever I am on irc I always try to allow the user to make their own informed choice about which approach to take. The clear advantage of the guide is that it is a quick and easy way to get an answer without having to use the wiki search utility. It is indisputable that the guide has allowed thousands to move to Ubuntu and use it happily.

In both cases, users do not find 100% reliable answers, but both resources can help. The point made by many on this thread, that both resources can be used, is a valid and important one.

At the same time, it is true that the fact that the ubuntuguide.org guide is a one man job is indeed problematic because it is not easy to find and correct errors. This is the reason that the Documentation Team have started to develop a version of the guide that is intended to be official. Yes, it has more explanations, but this is part of the learning experience, and at the same time it provides quick answers.

One point I feel I _have_ to make is that the wiki pages do not represent the views of the Documentation Team. There seems to be some confusion between the Documentation Team activities and the "newbies" pages on the wiki. They are not related.

Furthermore, I think I am right in repeating what azz has said: the views under discussion in this thread belong to some users, and are not an official policy of anyone at Ubuntu.

Part of the problem in my view has been caused by the fact that the NewUsers initiative is still very young and has made the initial mistake of believing that the particular approach they take is the only way to do it. This problem can easily be resolved by good communication, and I recommend to anyone interested that this matter be discussed at the next Community Council meeting.

Matt

[Mez]

Ok, first of all, let me say that that document is a work in progress.. It does NOT represent ANY official view in any way.

In my personal opinion, ubuntuguide is great, I often use it myself as a "cheat sheet" to get things working quickly when I've just started up a new computer.

I believe that the comment that seems to be quoted a lot was written not to "attack" ubuntuguide, but more to provide a better way of "teaching" new users rather than "giving instructions"

The aim of NUN is to support + educate, and, I (personally) believe that while the guide supports, it doesn't neccessarily educate.

That section of the NUN guidelines will be rewritten to be less "attacking" of the Guide, and explain what we mean in a more precise way, as it was never intended to come accross in the way it came across in this thread.

[rwabel]

This is an important thread, I'm glad its been started. However I am convinced that what we have here is a problem in communication that can easily be solved. Some points I would like to make.

First, I don't think it is in doubt that the guide at ubuntuguide.org is an excellent resource. Again, I don't think anyone believes that the wiki is a better resource: it is important to remember that the wiki is NOT official documentation, and while many pages are extremely good and useful, others are not. An example of the former would be the page on Restricted Formats (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RestrictedFormats), an example of the latter (as has already been mentioned in this thread) is the page about Installing Java (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Java).

The point is here that the documents have different pros and cons. The disadvantage of the ubuntuguide.org guide is that it doesn't explain the consequences of certain actions (for example adding backports without pinning the repository) and allow the users to make a choice. Whenever I am on irc I always try to allow the user to make their own informed choice about which approach to take. The clear advantage of the guide is that it is a quick and easy way to get an answer without having to use the wiki search utility. It is indisputable that the guide has allowed thousands to move to Ubuntu and use it happily.

In both cases, users do not find 100% reliable answers, but both resources can help. The point made by many on this thread, that both resources can be used, is a valid and important one.

At the same time, it is true that the fact that the ubuntuguide.org guide is a one man job is indeed problematic because it is not easy to find and correct errors. This is the reason that the Documentation Team have started to develop a version of the guide that is intended to be official. Yes, it has more explanations, but this is part of the learning experience, and at the same time it provides quick answers.

One point I feel I _have_ to make is that the wiki pages do not represent the views of the Documentation Team. There seems to be some confusion between the Documentation Team activities and the "newbies" pages on the wiki. They are not related.

Furthermore, I think I am right in repeating what azz has said: the views under discussion in this thread belong to some users, and are not an official policy of anyone at Ubuntu.

Part of the problem in my view has been caused by the fact that the NewUsers initiative is still very young and has made the initial mistake of believing that the particular approach they take is the only way to do it. This problem can easily be resolved by good communication, and I recommend to anyone interested that this matter be discussed at the next Community Council meeting.

Matt
to clarify and I'm still confused :-)
The Documentation part of the wiki is from the documentation team?
and where is or what is the newbies pages on the wiki?
There are far too much documentation things around. I'm looking forward to help tidy it up.

[mattheweast]

to clarify and I'm still confused :-)
The Documentation part of the wiki is from the documentation team?
and where is or what is the newbies pages on the wiki?
There are far too much documentation things around. I'm looking forward to help tidy it up.

None of the wiki is from the Documentation Team (with the exception of the DocumentationTeam pages, which do not contain any guides, but are simply pages used to organise the team). The wiki pages are contributed by users who write guides and tips. We can help tidy, but it is not part of the Documentation Team. Any more questions feel free to write to our mailing list and hopefully we can help out.

When I said "newbies pages" I meant pages such as https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUbuntuUsers

Matt

[Mez]

The backports has been approved, so I don't know why they took backports out of their wiki version of the guide.

Because I asked for it to be kept out of the guide until it was all moved over to the official servers, as it should be in the next week or two, because otherwise it's just a pain in the ass to do.

[lotusleaf]

UnOfficial UbuntuGuide = good
Wiki = good

Use what works

[TravisNewman]

UbuntuGuide is awesome. I was able to enable DMA on my DVD rom without any problems thanks to it.
Everytime I try to chat in #ubuntu, I see people mocking at newbie questions. Last time I logged in because my HDD crashed, all the help i got was "Your HDD died" "Your PC sucks" "Look at him, crying like his dog just died"... I replied "Actually, my dog DID die recently, and I'm just asking for help, so stfu", and the admin warned me about banning me!

GRREAT community you have there!... I'll stay in the forums, thank you.
If I remember, Rasta, I was there during that conversation and was trying to stick up for you. The thing is, with IRC, there are more elitists who think they're better than everyone else. That doesn't mean the channel is bad, it just means that some people need to calm down.

[thoreauputic]

I've read this thread with interest. I'd just like to make a couple of observations: (Well, I will modify that to "an attempt at a positive rant" ;) )

1) IRC channels inevitably have a variety of people, with a variety of personality types. It isn't accurate to say " #Ubuntu Does Not Like Ubuntuguide.org " - it might be more accurate to say "some people in #ubuntu don't like ubuntuguide.org".

2) It might be worth pointing out that in the past at least, those of us who spend a good deal of time trying to help on #ubuntu have seen unfortunate things happen to some people as a result of following some of the advice on ubuntuguide. This does not mean that the ubuntuguide is "bad" - and certainly it has corrected a few of the problem areas.

Kudos to the creator of the ubuntuguide - it has many good points and has helped many people.

3) The wiki entry that people are being referred to regarding " avoid ubuntuguide" was written by one person. To say that it is somehow #ubuntu policy is just inaccurate. I personally feel that the wiki entry should be rewritten to be less negative, but please be aware that there are many reasons why such an entry might be misunderstood. For example, documents are often written by people from different cultures and/or with another language as their native language.

4) I do think that the channel bot ( ubotu ) should not be pointing people to that wiki entry. it would be more productive to explain to people that following the ubuntuguide should not be done blindly. This is only because I and others have in the past had to spend considerable time on IRC helping people who did not quite understand what the guide was recommending, or used various parts of it that, at the time, were inaccurate. Often , also , they had misread it or left out crucial steps.

5) Accusations of elitism in regard to #ubuntu regulars make me smile.... I have in the past frequented channels which shall remain nameless where the "culture" of the channel could be so accused, but really, guys, #ubuntu is generally pretty friendly and tries hard to be helpful !

Here endeth the rant ... :roll: :grin:

[WildTangent]

they have a bot now that refers to that particular wiki page now? does it trigger on the mention of ubuntuguide.org?

why doesnt someone edit the wiki entry, to be less "attacking"? something more like:
4. Use caution when recommending people to use ubuntuguide.org, there are several reasons for this:
* Ubuntuguide.org occasionally presents wrong solutions, ranging from suboptimal solutions to pure regressions.
* Ubuntuguide.org is not really a guide, but a mere list of command you might enter. It gives no explanations at all. If one wants to learn how the solution works, the wiki is a better recommendation.
* All information on Ubuntuguide.org is present on the wiki in clearer and expanded form.

alright, so i went and did it. about time someone took some initiative ;)

-Wild

[poofyhairguy]

I moved this thread out of the beginners forum because I didn't to scare anyone away from the guide. Honestly I think that the entire "Guide vs Wiki" thing is very inaccurate.

They serve different purposes.

The guide is a great way to just do things. You need Java, Codecs, etc? The guide will tell you how. It won't explain things, but one of the advantages of the command line is you don't need to understand what you are copying and pasting.

If I could change the guide at all....I would fork it and make a "Graphic Ubuntu Guide" that would give gui ways to do most of the tasks for people scared by the command line.

And prejudices against the guide are probably based on the past. Since backports became the only referanced third party repo all the problems have gone away for me and anyone else I helped. Its should be considered to be stable at this point.

I really think that this discussion reveals a point that is deeper than the "guide vs. Wiki." It shows a conflict that goes on to this day:

"Official Ubuntu vs. Unofficial Ubuntu"

Its amazing to many people, but I believe that the Main (as in not the Universe, Backport or any other repo) was actually meant to be an entire system. I think it was assumed (and this false assumption is still held by many people I believe) that this could be "enough packages for most people."

This lead to the creation of "Official Ubuntu": The Main Repository, The Wiki, and The #Ubuntu IRC Room were the original parts of this official Ubuntu. As they were set up, it was to be a great resource where people could learn and grow in Linux, and free themselves from proprietary software.

Then something happened: Ubuntu got big fast. And a truth was revealed: Most people don't care about free software and learning about Linux, then just want things to work.

Its impossible to have official numbers, but I bet more than 60% of Ubuntu users want Java, Flash, or media codecs (or all of them). I know exactly why this wasn't included (legal ramifications and a want to be a "pure and free OS"), but I also know that most people want it. EVERY Ubuntu computer I have set-up or given away, the person wanted this. I ALWAYS add this stuff myself. It seems a lot of people want there Ubuntu machine to "just work" (sorry Apple).

And with the motto of "just work" the "Unofficial Ubuntu" was born. The Unofficial Ubuntu consists of the Ubunti Guide, the Ubuntu Forum (it was unofficial at first...not part of the original plan) and the Backports Repo. Even though these forces were not in competition with the "Official Ubuntu," the Unofficial Ubuntu got very popular.

I think this entire thing is just small infighting between the parts "Official Ubuntu" and the "Unofficial Ubuntu" (such as negative comments in the IRC channel or in the wiki). I think some of the Official Ubuntu fans have a natural friction to the concept that most people prefer the "just works" approach, and have not given up the thought that Ubuntu could be popular without the help of backports and the guide (aka that bad non free stuff).

I think the best solution would be for "Unofficial Ubuntu" to merge with "Official Ubuntu" and use Official Ubuntu as a base of operation and a legal cover. A better connection between the two will help in the future.

This is already happening. There are talks to make the backport repo official. Threads like this one will probably have an effect on the IRC channel. Since the Guide does very well as it is....the only thing lacking is for the forum to use the wiki more in areas where it has obvious strengths, like How Tos. I have a plan I will set in motion to do that- to make forum users the majority of eye balls on the wiki:

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=48524

Soon Ubuntu will grow and Officially (as much as it legally can) swallow these Unofficial parts and accept that "just works" is a philosophy that must be respected. Then the friction will end.

[mattheweast]

Erm dude,

I don't believe that you meant your remarks to sound divisory or subversive, but if you read them again, I think you may see that they could be interpreted in that way:


"Official Ubuntu vs. Unofficial Ubuntu"
{snip}
I think the best solution would be for "Unofficial Ubuntu" to swallow "Official Ubuntu" and use Official Ubuntu as a base of operation and a legal cover.
{snip}
the only thing lacking is for the forum to swallow the wiki and use it as it pleases.


I hope that you will be able to reassure me that you didn't mean these remarks in that way!

With regards to the point you make about things "just working", that's a perfectly valid opinion of course:



Then something happened: Ubuntu got big fast. And a truth was revealed: Most people don't care about free software, then just want things to work.

My view on this is that the best way to proceed is to inform people as much as possible about free software and how it works, and allow them to make informed decisions.

yours, Matt

[poofyhairguy]

I hope that you will be able to reassure me that you didn't mean these remarks in that way!

No. It was a bad metaphor I guess. I'll reword it.



With regards to the point you make about things "just working", that's a perfectly valid opinion of course:

My view on this is that the best way to proceed is to inform people as much as possible about free software and how it works, and allow them to make informed decisions.


I agree.

A point that needs to be gotten across is that the official Ubuntu, and the free software movement is nothing to be mocked.

It is a really good thing that Ubuntu is completely free out of the box. I would be kinda mad (even though I fight with it daily) if some of the unofficial stuff that is not free would get bolted on. The extremism (all free software in the distro) is part of a greater extemism (the Richard Stallman kind) that allows it all to exist.

Official Ubuntu is a great gift to the world. Its an amazing testament to what free software can do.

But for many people it lacks many things. One day I hope that free Java and free Flash will become usable and will be included in Ubuntu out of the box.

But what is essential (and what is lacking) is that the purists and the defenders and protectors of the official Ubuntu relalize that the Unofficial stuff exist because of demand for it, so to ignore it would be foolish.

Thats why the two will become one.

[mattheweast]

Thanks for that clarification :)

I agree with you, what we have here are not two opposing philosophies, but two philosophies that are entirely reconciable. That is the reason that many high demand things (e.g. mplayer) have come into the Ubuntu repositories, and why the backports project is becoming official. At the same time we need to make sure people are educated as much as possible (education = good).

btw, please don't swallow the wiki we've worked and are continuing to work hard on it... :-P

All in all the moral of this thread IMHO is that its not helpful to consider different resources as opposing, but rather as complementing each other.

:smile:

[poofyhairguy]

btw, please don't swallow the wiki we've worked and are continuing to work hard on it... :-P


"given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus%27s_Law

[mattheweast]

I didn't mean that ;) The more people working on the wiki, the better, from my point of view. We need help!

[professor_chaos]

the link that #ubuntu likes to use when talking about ubuntuguide
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUsersNetworkGuidelines

->snip from link above...
#Do NOT recommend people to use ubuntuguide.org, there are several reasons for this:
*Ubuntuguide.org presents wrong solutions, ranging from suboptimal solutions to pure regressions.
*Ubuntuguide.org is not really a guide, but a mere list of command you might enter. It gives no explanations at all
*All information on Ubuntuguide.org is present on the wiki in clearer and better form


https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUsersNetworkGuidelines

Looks like the wiki admins decided to change their tune alittle to a slightly less commanding tone. now it reads ...

Use caution when recommending people to use ubuntuguide.org, there are several reasons for this:
* Ubuntuguide.org occasionally presents wrong solutions, ranging from suboptimal solutions to pure regressions.
* Ubuntuguide.org is not really a guide, but a mere list of command you might enter. It gives no explanations at all. If one wants to learn how the solution works, the wiki is a better recommendation.

I'm very happy about this because telling people what to do is very bad. And as for the elitest #Ubuntu IRC members telling other what they cannot post (and therefore what they can post)...I am going to recommend them for a promotion to high level positions in the Thought Police Department. [-X .... :mad:
"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "humanity to others"................................... \\:D/

I found the "Guide" to be helpful. I find the wiki to be helpful. Wow, imagine that, I can enjoy information from more than one source. Makes me feel free. :grin:

BTW, I really enjoy the community of this forum. I especially like to see the most active posters on this forum, actively helping new users with their problems. That is humanity toward others. I commend you. :wink:

[WildTangent]

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUsersNetworkGuidelines

Looks like the wiki admins decided to change their tune alittle to a slightly less commanding tone. now it reads ...
i was the one that originally changed it to
4. Use caution when recommending people to use ubuntuguide.org, there are several reasons for this:
* Ubuntuguide.org occasionally presents wrong solutions, ranging from suboptimal solutions to pure regressions.
* Ubuntuguide.org is not really a guide, but a mere list of command you might enter. It gives no explanations at all. If one wants to learn how the solution works, the wiki is a better recommendation.
* All information on Ubuntuguide.org is present on the wiki in clearer and expanded form.

and then someone else snipped the last bullet out

Im proud of what ive done :D

-Wild

[rwabel]

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUsersNetworkGuidelines

Looks like the wiki admins decided to change their tune alittle to a slightly less commanding tone. now it reads ...

Use caution when recommending people to use ubuntuguide.org, there are several reasons for this:
* Ubuntuguide.org occasionally presents wrong solutions, ranging from suboptimal solutions to pure regressions.
* Ubuntuguide.org is not really a guide, but a mere list of command you might enter. It gives no explanations at all. If one wants to learn how the solution works, the wiki is a better recommendation.

I'm very happy about this because telling people what to do is very bad. And as for the elitest #Ubuntu IRC members telling other what they cannot post (and therefore what they can post)...I am going to recommend them for a promotion to high level positions in the Thought Police Department. [-X .... :mad:
"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "humanity to others"................................... \\:D/

I found the "Guide" to be helpful. I find the wiki to be helpful. Wow, imagine that, I can enjoy information from more than one source. Makes me feel free. :grin:

BTW, I really enjoy the community of this forum. I especially like to see the most active posters on this forum, actively helping new users with their problems. That is humanity toward others. I commend you. :wink:
that's a great thing to hear. Furtermore the https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UserDocumentation is progressing and also https://wiki.ubuntu.com/forum/

[rwabel]

i was the one that originally changed it to
4. Use caution when recommending people to use ubuntuguide.org, there are several reasons for this:
* Ubuntuguide.org occasionally presents wrong solutions, ranging from suboptimal solutions to pure regressions.
* Ubuntuguide.org is not really a guide, but a mere list of command you might enter. It gives no explanations at all. If one wants to learn how the solution works, the wiki is a better recommendation.
* All information on Ubuntuguide.org is present on the wiki in clearer and expanded form.

and then someone else snipped the last bullet out

Im proud of what ive done :D

-Wild
well the last point isn't really true (yet) in my opinion. Not all informtaion from the ubuntuguide are yet on the wiki sites. your last point is in the guidelines :-) Thanks for the changes

[mattheweast]

well the last point isn't really true (yet) in my opinion. Not all informtaion from the ubuntuguide are yet on the wiki sites. your last point is in the guidelines :-) Thanks for the changes

I've set up a /talk page to discuss the material in that page: that way people can discuss the wiki page without modifying the main page.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewUsersNetworkGuidelines/talk

Matt

[Burgundavia]

To be absolutely clear about this:

The Ubuntu Documentation team is very happy that Chen has done all the work that he has. Sometimes it is easier to just do things than wait for an organization, such as Ubuntu Doc Team.

However, the Ubuntuguide.org presents a very narrow view, and as stated previously, doesn't go into *any* explanations, even one sentence ones. We are not advocating reading a paragraph before the command, just some simple explanation.

That being said, we realized back in December that we need to utilise this resource, and thus ported the HTML to DocBook in our SVN repo. This was after quite extensive communication with Chen himself and him granting permission. The Ubuntuguide.org has become the foundation of the FAQ guide in our SVN repo.

Fast forward to today, and our wiki is coming along nicely. The wiki has the advantage that the Doc Team (like myself), can correct innocent mistakes and misconceptions. Ubuntuguide.org does not allow us that ability. Sometimes we have communicated with Chen about issues that we would like to see fixed, and sometimes it has been and sometimes it hasn't. When it comes down things which may actively break somebodies computer, you can see why we are concerned.

So, in closing, please do not recommend ubuntuguide.org anymore. The wiki should serve all purposes quite nicely and if it doesn't, that information can be added to the wiki.

Corey Burger
Ubuntu Documentation Team

[az]

To be absolutely clear about this:

The Ubuntu Documentation team is very happy that Chen has done all the work that he has. Sometimes it is easier to just do things than wait for an organization, such as Ubuntu Doc Team.

However, the Ubuntuguide.org presents a very narrow view, and as stated previously, doesn't go into *any* explanations, even one sentence ones. We are not advocating reading a paragraph before the command, just some simple explanation.

That being said, we realized back in December that we need to utilise this resource, and thus ported the HTML to DocBook in our SVN repo. This was after quite extensive communication with Chen himself and him granting permission. The Ubuntuguide.org has become the foundation of the FAQ guide in our SVN repo.

Fast forward to today, and our wiki is coming along nicely. The wiki has the advantage that the Doc Team (like myself), can correct innocent mistakes and misconceptions. Ubuntuguide.org does not allow us that ability. Sometimes we have communicated with Chen about issues that we would like to see fixed, and sometimes it has been and sometimes it hasn't. When it comes down things which may actively break somebodies computer, you can see why we are concerned.

So, in closing, please do not recommend ubuntuguide.org anymore. The wiki should serve all purposes quite nicely and if it doesn't, that information can be added to the wiki.

Corey Burger
Ubuntu Documentation Team

I would hope that the documentation on the UserDocumentation page is accurate enough so that Chen can base his next version of the guide on it. The narrow format does not meet the doc team's needs, but many of the poeple on this thread like it because of that.

It serves a need.

Would the doc team endorse the next version if it was based on wiki material?

[Rory]

So, in closing, please do not recommend ubuntuguide.org anymore. The wiki should serve all purposes quite nicely and if it doesn't, that information can be added to the wiki.

Corey Burger
Ubuntu Documentation Team

Well, looks like we now have an official Ubuntu voice weighing in.

However, given that the ubuntuguide got me up and running in many critical areas and the wiki still does not answer many of the same questions in a clear and concise manner, I'll choose to continue to use and recommend ubuntuguide.org to others. When the wiki has matured and learns how to cut out the fat and embrace clarity and brevity, I'll also be happy to recommend that document.

Rory

[az]

Well, looks like we now have an official Ubuntu voice weighing in.

Rory


Corey is one member of the doc team. It is a stretch to call his "the voice" of Ubuntu.

[poptones]

can the doc team's "official version" of the ubuntuguide be accessed conveniently online? I'm definitely not a guru but I know my way around and I find it very handy as a cookbook. There is a LOT to be said for cookbooks; every experienced engineer I have ever known prizes his library of cookbooks. If ubuntuguide is the only one we have right now then what else can you expect anyone to do?

I've considered joining the doc team. I'm a very good tech writer but I have personal issues that may preclude me from active participation in the community as a whole. So don't think I have no respect for the value of the doc team - good documentation is every bit as important as good code. But I'm not a fan of saying "don't listen to him, he doesn't know what he's saying."

Everything I have tried from there worked for me. If there is something being suggested that is dangerous or just subnominal then the proper response is not "don't listen to him." That does nothing to address the issue and only helps spread ignorance. Rather, the productive response is "listen to me" - promptly followed by Here is the better way...

[rwabel]

can the doc team's "official version" of the ubuntuguide be accessed conveniently online? I'm definitely not a guru but I know my way around and I find it very handy as a cookbook. There is a LOT to be said for cookbooks; every experienced engineer I have ever known prizes his library of cookbooks. If ubuntuguide is the only one we have right now then what else can you expect anyone to do?

I've considered joining the doc team. I'm a very good tech writer but I have personal issues that may preclude me from active participation in the community as a whole. So don't think I have no respect for the value of the doc team - good documentation is every bit as important as good code. But I'm not a fan of saying "don't listen to him, he doesn't know what he's saying."

Everything I have tried from there worked for me. If there is something being suggested that is dangerous or just subnominal then the proper response is not "don't listen to him." That does nothing to address the issue and only helps spread ignorance. Rather, the productive response is "listen to me" - promptly followed by Here is the better way...
I've started some days ago to help out on the UserDocumentation. Here is my personal opinion:
In the last 2 days a lot has changed and many new howto's came on the page. There are still many gaps, but they get filled.

I appreciate the work on the ubuntuguide and it's still a good resource, however I prefer a place where all can contribute. You could also put your howto's!

I would never ditch the ubuntuguide and I would never say it's a bad thing! However the point is, that there are obviously some critical points. The easiest way to fix or enhance such things is in fact a wiki.

[Rory]

Corey is one member of the doc team. It is a stretch to call his "the voice" of Ubuntu.

Note I said "an official Ubuntu voice" not "the voice."

[carlc]

If it were not for the Ubuntu Guide, I doubt I would be using Ubuntu or any other Linux distro currently. The guide helped be to finally get everything up and running on my pc for once. Personally, I find the attitude of wiki.ubuntu.com to be offensive. Sounds like a power trip to me!

[poofyhairguy]

So, in closing, please do not recommend ubuntuguide.org anymore. The wiki should serve all purposes quite nicely and if it doesn't, that information can be added to the wiki.


Your answer is no. I will continue to point people (even new users) to the guide and tell people to rely on its information. The wiki is too paranoid about things like backports generally, and only has SOME uses. Fine ones....but the guide is still great and will be linked to.

[Burgundavia]

Backports can mostly be safely recommended. What happened early on was teething errors mostly.

Corey

[poofyhairguy]

Backports can mostly be safely recommended. What happened early on was teething errors mostly.

Corey

I have always thought that it would be neat if the wiki could have a "GUI Ubuntu Guide." Where instead of apt-get command there are screenshots of synaptic. Is that possible?

[Burgundavia]

Images are certainly possible on the wiki. See:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SynapticHowto

Corey

[poofyhairguy]

Images are certainly possible on the wiki. See:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SynapticHowto

Corey


Good link. I will work on that in the future then.

[jiyuu0]

So, in closing, please do not recommend ubuntuguide.org anymore. The wiki should serve all purposes quite nicely and if it doesn't, that information can be added to the wiki.

might as well you rephrase your sentence to...

"So, in closing, shut down ubuntuguide.org as it's not needed anymore. The wiki should serve all purposes quite nicely and if it doesn't, that information can be added to the wiki"

yes, it's true that "some" users might have gotten into probs with ubuntuguide
yes, it's true that "some" of those went to #ubuntu and asked for support
yes, it's true that #ubuntu are tired of supporting those "some"

but, let's say "some" is equal to 100 users per day (which i doubt that many)

check out how many actually came back to ubuntuguide daily
http://extremetracking.com/open;unique?login=ug504
*unique visitor hits

there's a clear reason why users are coming back... So, should i write something for the "some" or the majority? Does the majority like lenghty explanations or just wants things to just work?

So, in closing:

There's no need to say who's better, wiki vs ubuntuguide. I started ubuntuguide for my own reference when i do support for others. It was never meant to be better than anybody

At the end of the day, users that have tried both wiki and ubuntuguide will know which they prefer. There's no need to say which is better. Let em decide.

I have not said anything bad about #ubuntu or wiki, as I think it's good and resourceful. If you think ubuntuguide is not suitable, plz rephrase your sentence to...

"Please read and use Wiki where it provides good informations with explanations. Only use UbuntuGuide for reference as it would cause problems if some instructions are executed wrongly or blindly."

[alred]

i guess just get rid of that ridiculous "advice" , however well intentioned it is , they serve no practical purpose at all no-matter from which pespective we look at ...

people might be not that intelligent when judging by the book and they know that !! but somehow there is an untaught wisdom inside them , maybe because of the place where they come from , the way they brought up and develop in their social enviroment , their culture and maybe lessons from their history , they generally feel irritated and repulsive against being lessoned with which and what is always better than their hard work and efforts being done or contributed , call them over-hyper-sensitive if we like , but that is a reality they have to face everyday in their life ...

come to think about that , i though Ubuntu was originated from an african tribal land or what , or some other similar land , which as a whole , is the majority of this earth , and that is why , although i can't contribute anything because of lacking of some intelligence , i do like to dream about Linux and free softwares being really a practical tool for national education and for every nations who are trying very hard to be self-sufficent in their national development ...

consider ourselves lucky , we have both quality in-depth resources and practical guide-lines offering to every human without any of those typical self-defeating high cost and sacrifices that people have to endure when comes to developments of any kind , be it personal or national ...

infact we have a saying that "it is nice to be important but it is more important to be nice ..."


just my thoughts ...



.

[mattheweast]

Somebody asked where the Documentation Team's work in progress can be found: so here are the links:

http://tseng2.ath.cx/~ubuntu-doc/ (Ubuntu documentation)

and

http://www.lnix.net/~froud/ (Kubuntu documentation)

The Documentation Team's version of the ubuntuguide.org, mentioned a number of times in this thread, is the faq guide, to be found for various architectures at the first of those two links.

Please bear in mind that this work is definitely work in progress and has a lot still to be done.

Matt

[Burgundavia]

Wow, what a hornets nest I stirred up.

I honestly did not mean to stir this up again.

So I will say everything again, I guess, but in point form:

-We really like Chen
-The ubuntuguide was a fantastic resource when the wiki was just getting started
-Chen and docteam have worked together
-The Doc Team has had some frustration with working with ubuntguide, due to issues
-We were frustrated that the ubuntuguide was read-only to us, and thus non-fixable
-Chen disappeared for several months, furthering frustration
-The wiki is now taking shape, and the doc team can steer that
-So, now that the wiki exists, from our perspective, there is no reason to recommend something that we have no control over

So to be really really clear:

Chen: great guy
Ubuntuguide: great resouce THEN, not now
Wiki: Where we are going

Corey

[jiyuu0]

Wow, what a hornets nest I stirred up.

I honestly did not mean to stir this up again.

So I will say everything again, I guess, but in point form:

-We really like Chen
-The ubuntuguide was a fantastic resource when the wiki was just getting started
-Chen and docteam have worked together
-The Doc Team has had some frustration with working with ubuntguide, due to issues
-We were frustrated that the ubuntuguide was read-only to us, and thus non-fixable
-Chen disappeared for several months, furthering frustration
-The wiki is now taking shape, and the doc team can steer that
-So, now that the wiki exists, from our perspective, there is no reason to recommend something that we have no control over

So to be really really clear:

Chen: great guy
Ubuntuguide: great resouce THEN, not now
Wiki: Where we are going

Corey

-We really like Chen
Chua not Chen (i think typo in the faqguide)

-Chen disappeared for several months, furthering frustration
i'm pretty much around in the forum and if you see the changelog, am still workin on it. if i noted errors or updates, will normally work on it asap.

-We were frustrated that the ubuntuguide was read-only to us, and thus non-fixable
there's pros and cons bout read-only. anyway, the faqguide is shaping up and that's good.

[mattheweast]

Yep, let's leave it at that. I don't think there is a conflict here.

If anyone has any suggestions or improvements for the Documentation Team docs, we would be really pleased to accept them on our mailing list (http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc). If anyone wants to contribute to them, our wiki pages (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam) should explain how to get involved, and we can help in our irc channel: irc.freenode.org, #ubuntu-doc

Matt

[rwabel]

Let's all improve the wiki! In my opinion, if someone wants to help users give them both ressources if you want, but mention that ubuntuguide might have some risks.

Both have the right to be there. But it would be great, if Chua contributes to the wiki!

[alred]

risks are unavoidable , users of all kinds of products , presented to them with all kinds of approaches , and they knew that . Infact Linux itself is a bigger risk if we are trying to spread it , for home users and especially for businesses ...

so i as a linux user , whatever it is down the road ahead of us , hope that both help resources will remain as what they are , it's no good for either sides trying to be leaner or trying to be more "in-depth" contrary to their original approach and practice , it only helps to confuse people instead of helping them in their different stages of learning ...

maybe in the future , if i do learn more about linux and ubuntu and their inner workings , i will try , provided that i'm sure about the solution , to contribute some suggestions or docs and the likes , but with consideration of the different approaches and methods both are heading for ...

i guess both are equally wanted by all users in their different stages of learning and familiarization of Linux in every kind of enviroments ...

my opinion ...

[Rory]

Wow, what a hornets nest I stirred up.
-So, now that the wiki exists, from our perspective, there is no reason to recommend something that we have no control over

Corey

And THAT says it all. If wiki can't control it, they don't want users to use ubuntuguiude.

A very proprietary approach, interestingly. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would be proud.

Here's to making both the wiki and ubuntuguide the best resources they can be. As far as the slagging of ubuntuguide.org by wiki members, well, it looks like they'll continue. Disappointing.

[mattheweast]

And THAT says it all. If wiki can't control it, they don't want users to use ubuntuguiude.

A very proprietary approach, interestingly. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would be proud.

Here's to making both the wiki and ubuntuguide the best resources they can be. As far as the slagging of ubuntuguide.org by wiki members, well, it looks like they'll continue. Disappointing.

This is an overreaction. Let us please calm the thread down: it has been said many times that both these guides and documentation are useful. Full stop.

In terms of the wiki being proprietary, in fact the wiki has an open source licence. Further, anyone can change and edit it. This encourages people to correct mistakes and contribute as a community. Corey's point was simply that this is not the case with the ubuntuguide.org guide. As n number of people have said on this thread, both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Surely this thread can now be put to rest?

[TravisNewman]

yep. Too much flame throwing.

[dataw0lf]

This is an overreaction. Let us please calm the thread down: it has been said many times that both these guides and documentation are useful. Full stop.

In terms of the wiki being proprietary, in fact the wiki has an open source licence. Further, anyone can change and edit it. This encourages people to correct mistakes and contribute as a community. Corey's point was simply that this is not the case with the ubuntuguide.org guide. As n number of people have said on this thread, both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Surely this thread can now be put to rest?

I think what was being addressed was the 'ultimate' tone Burgundavia struck. He probably didn't mean it in such a way, but I think that's how some people here took it.

I can't comment on the wiki, nor ubuntuguide. I've used neither, and have recommended neither. However, to foster and promote a community, I don't think we need to make rash comments like 'Good resource THEN, not NOW' or 'The Wiki is proprietary <insert lame comparison to Microsoft here>'. These are both overreactions, and are just furthering the decline of this thread's main purpose, which, and correct me if I'm wrong, was clarification that the Ubuntu team recognizes that alternative methods and approaches exist, and acknowledges their contribution to the community.

The problem, of course, is the support Canonical has pledged. In doing so, they can't really recommend an 'unofficial' site when they're hard at work on their own. Everyone should respect that, but the Ubuntu Doc team also has to recognize that they can't provide the best solution for everyone. If you're trying to do so, you're going to end up not satisfying anyone.

In the end, use what works. If you've had success with the ubuntuguide, stick with it, regardless of what some elitist tells you online. If you want to recommend the wiki (which I think has a better approach overall; i.e.., the ability to actually participate and contribute in a community is what Ubuntu is all about, no?), but don't make ultimatums concerning alternative approaches.