Talk:Ubuntu/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Ubuntu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Things to improve

The intro is a bit disjointed. For example, the second paragraph has content about the length of support for the latest version, then suddenly changes to information about its philosophy on free-software content and then suddenly states that there is a large support community.

How can this be improved?-Localzuk ^(talk) 11:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph is similar. It covers the derivatives but then goes into how to download them. This seems a bit wrong too.-Localzuk ^(talk) 11:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've started fixing this. There really is a substantial amount of work needed on this article to make it flow properly. Chris Cunningham 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing the article name to Ubuntu (operating system)

Please change the article disambiguation title to Ubuntu (operating system) as the Ubuntu raison d’être is to function as an operating system, not distributing Linux kernel.

One might argue that in todays spoken language Linux is a short reference to longer form Linux system, which indicates a system which among other parts builds up on Linux kernel. This is true.

The term Linux (system) is used when having Linux as a part of the system is the main focus. For example one might say he is comparing different flavours of Linux (systems). By doing this the speaker indicates he is not interrested in similar system, which don't include Linux kernel. In the same maner one could talk about GNOME system when he is focusing on operating systems that use GNOME as their desktop environment.

How ever providing a Linux system is not the focus of Ubuntu. The mission of Ubuntu is to provide a user friendly zero price operating system, consisting of the best free software pieces available. One day this may not include Linux kernel. So Ubuntu is distributing a Linux system only by accident. Because it currently happens to fit their goals. --Easyas12c 15:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that move might be misleading. The project doesn't have an ideological commitment to Linux, but is generally characterized as a Linux distribution. Per WP:NC, we ought to defer to the usual usuage. Twinxor t 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ubuntu's web site, as well as a number of its default UI components, refer to it by the tagline "Linux for human beings", and ubuntu.com describes it as "a complete Linux-based operating system". So in addition to the conventional usage being "Ubuntu Linux", not "Ubuntu operating system", Ubuntu itself seems to be promoting the connection with Linux. Ubernostrum 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, there isn't the remotest chance of Ubuntu ever _not_ falling under the category of a linux distribution regardless of the professed agnosticism, making the point moot. Chris Cunningham 11:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not the remotest chance?

Consider Linus's disdain of the FSF and its 'extremist' policies: How 'bout if the Linux kernel sticks to using GPLv2 and hardcore Free Software zealots, out of ideological reasons, move away to developing the HURD instead, leading to the HURD becoming a technologically superior kernel? And don't say that there are no hardcore Free Software zealots developing critical parts of the kernel (drivers, APIs, etc.). Or what if L4 became a better supported kernel? Or some other exotic Free-Software kernel, perhaps not even developed yet? And this not even considering the possibility that GPLv2-shackled Linux would become locked-out of DRM and Trusted-Computing protected systems -- a possibility Linus himself have acknowledged[1]. These are all hypothetical, of course, but personally I think it unwise to say that "there isn't the remotest chance" of Ubuntu becoming a non-Linux zero-cost Free Software distribution.

There is not the remotest chance of mainstream development focus moving to a non-Linux kernel in a predictable timeframe. Chris Cunningham 09:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

How true! BTW, I also heard that 640kb will be enough for any home computer in a "predictable timeframe". Isilanes 21:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Out-of-context quips aren't useful to the discussion. Chris Cunningham 07:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

But back to the topic at hand, I personally agree that we should nevertheless stick to WP:NC, since most of the public recognizes Ubuntu as a Linux distribution and keep the article title as is.

(When they recognize Ubuntu at all, not every Web surfer and personal computer user knows of the existence of Ubuntu, you know; not even the cool kids. Which is why we gotta tell 'em :p) --Lemi4 07:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

I've cut out almost all of the external links. Wikipedia is not intended to be a one-stop shop for getting started on using operating systems. Please add any relevant tutorials and so on to Wikibooks. Chris Cunningham 11:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What is wikipedia for then? As far as I can see it is about giving people access to information. Surely links to things such as Automatix, which are considered as key to the OS by many people, are relevant here? Raoul 19:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for observing the subject at hand. Automatix is discussed (and indeed linked to) within the article proper, in context. Extlinks are predominantly used on WP for pimping people's personal projects. This isn't helpful.

On a more personal note, Automatix is a ghastly hack and the maintainer has little grasp of the movement he's involved in. I'll be happy when it's banished permanently. I wish the general Ubuntu community were less willing to dish out 1996-style advice. Chris Cunningham 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I should have checked whether it was already mentioned in the article. I don't see what's so wrong with it though. Many people complain of the difficulty of switching to linux. Programs like Automatix make everything much simpler (adding all the commercial drivers and plugins manually can take quite a long time). Raoul 12:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

AIUI, it does a number of things that can put the system in a non-standard and potentially unstable state where machines can act unpredictably and where bugs and problems are much more difficult to diagnose and support. Most people frusterated with Automatix and similar scripts are from the support community and seem to have a critique along these lines.

That's just my understanding though. --mako ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

But it's aimed at newer users. If they tried making the changes themselves it would result in similar problems, just probably more of them. And Automatix acts in a set way, so I'd have thought once you'd learnt about what it does it would be easier to solve the problems caused by it than by a newbie to linux. Raoul 15:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is precisely because it is aimed at new users that it's so dangerous. It lacks the rigourous code/ui/policy review process that official tools go through. It encourages people to bypass the packaging system, run scripts as root, install non-QAed binaries and - worst of all - use mplayer for watching video. Chris Cunningham 15:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it ran as sudo instead of root? Maybe my lack of knowledge about linux is causing a problem here. Plus you need to bypass the packaging system to install quite a few commercial things don't you? If you go to RestrictedFormats on the Ubuntu wiki it has a lot of command line stuff, which suggest you can't just go into synaptic and click the boxes that you want to get them to work. Raoul 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This suggests that the wiki is always useful. In my experience this is not the case. I try to remove bad advice when possible. Chris Cunningham 09:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sudo is root. It's just another way of getting the same privledges. --mako ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sudo isn't exactly the same as root. You're right that it gives the same priveleges, but there is still a difference between giving a scipt root priveleges and logging into a root account. I don't see a problem with allowing a script to run using sudo. Raoul 11:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The risk's the same as giving any application root, which is that a security flaw (or malicious code) could effectively root your system. Twinxor t 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You have to use root access to do a lot of tasks anyway. At least it is a script using it, instead of a human who is likely to make mistakes and possibly cause a lot of damage. This goes back to earlier where I made exactly the same claim, so we've made no progress. I'll stop arguing as we're not getting anywhere. Raoul 16:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"Running scripts as root" means that the script has root privileges, regardless of the means it got them; this is the common usage. I agree with your point that sudo is less error-prone, but Chris criticized giving root privileges to a script regardless of the means. Or actually, criticized running any non-QA:d program as root, as the distinction between a script and a binary isn't really relevant here (though it is with setuid root). AFAICS his point is also that Automatix doesn't come with the distribution and new users should be taught to distrust such packages to some degree, as there are lesser guarantees of what they contain (perhaps even with independent QA).

I'm not sure I get the snipe at mplayer, though. There are legal issues with it in some countries, so maybe that's the reason? IMHO in those cases it's the legal systems that are broken, not the software, but it sounds ethical for an installer to warn about this, even if there's no real chance of trouble with law enforcement. I don't know if Automatix does this. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 14:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The snipe at mplayer was directed at its generally dubious legal standing, its maintainers' hostility towards any meaningful integration being done by distros or downstream projects and its legendary interface issues (it's the only video player where "just run it from the command line" has ever been used as a counterargument for having an appalling GUI). This is 2006 and there have been better solutions for the majority of mplayer's use cases for several years now. But on the non-running-untrustworthy-scripts-as-root thing you got me perfectly. Automatix does nasty things and it doesn't do them in a way which can be cleanly and easily reversed without having to use Automatix. Chris Cunningham 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

UK English

As Canonical are a UK registered company and a few people editing appear to be British I've gone through and corrected the whole article to use UK English. Please bear this in mind when making future edits. Chris Cunningham 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do I even bother. Chris Cunningham 15:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for using UK english, i appreciate it (even though i'm Australian). Much of the article originally used British spellings (eg colour) so i thought it was appropriate to maintain the status quo. That said, maybe its because Australian is a weird mix of US and UK english, however for 'focusses' for example, i've never seen that spelling before. I've always used 'focuses'. Maybe i am wrong, however language has a certain dynamic feel and rather than try to religiously change everything to one or the other, just change the fundamental differences like 'colour' for example.Suicup 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Focusses is horrible and I try to avoid the word wherever possible. I wasn't in the mood for rewording the intro again though. Original the article was kind of half-assed, odd instances of both common dialects. I'd have settled for the US form if it had been consistent but it really wasn't, and now it is :) Chris Cunningham 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hooray! I really appreciate your work here. EdC 01:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... foci? Septegram 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

One more time, for those playing at home: Companies, groups, organisations and teams are treated as plural when referred to by their names. Thus, Canonical are the sponsors of Ubuntu. I'm not even that bothered whether this article continues to use UK English, but if it's going to be changed to the US convention then the entire article should be changed at once. Chris Cunningham 11:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. A minor point, but Canonical is registered in the Isle of man rather than the UK. Not that it matters - we use the British English too. I'm not convinced, by the way, that British English insists upon use of the plural in the circumstances you describe. See American and British English differences and [2], for example. Crebbin 12:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns doesn't go as far as mandating it, but it certainly points it out. Personally I'd make very few exceptions to the rule, and I always treat proper nouns as plural. Chris Cunningham 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are there so many refrences in this discussion to British English, no such language exists, rather it is simply English. The americanised spellings are dialects and it is only in that case where the country of use should be applied. Since this article relates to a company that is registered within the territories of QeII, ie the Isle of Man which while not being part of the UK or Great Brition IS part of the British Isles therfor the use of English is just common sense. I do wish people would stop purportraiting the incorrect term British English and stick to the correct article conventions.

British English is a common term for the dialect of English spoken in the British Isles. Of course, English has no official dialect, so it is ambiguous to refer to any single dialect as "English". Twinxor t 22:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

merge

The Edgy Eft article is really not needed, it should be a sentence in the Ubuntu article - it's even a future release rather than an actual one, making it even more rediculous to have an article about it specifically. That's why I propose the merge, it seems rediculous to have the stub instead of one line here. 65.94.100.225 16:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, Edgy Eft is not a part of Ubuntu Linux Distribution, but a version of it, and i think it deserves a space of it's own. Life is a four letter word 18:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that is not true. We cover the other versions of Ubuntu here and as such should cover this version here too.-Localzuk ^(talk) 18:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the date of Dapper release is wrong!

The isolate sentence after first paragraph includes a wrong date, doesn't it? IIRC, Dapper was released June 1, 2006. Jancikotuc 17:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i found evidence here, i'm changing it... Jancikotuc 17:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

6.06.1. Getting the release date wrong by four months would have been quite an error :) Chris Cunningham 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

can you please give your sources? coz i bothered to look at Ubuntu's website and there's a big sign reading "Ubuntu 6.06 LTS With Long Term Support released June 1st 2006". I see you give a different version number, but somehow i'm not able to find any news about it. Can you give me a link to the release announcement of 6.06.1 please? TIA. Besides, it's less than 3 months' difference ;) Jancikotuc 08:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2006-August/000088.html kthxbai. Chris Cunningham 09:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanx, convinced. Jancikotuc 17:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sister OSs

We should include links to the article on kubuntu and xubuntu.--//Mac Lover ^Talk _C 22:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Try the Variants section. Chris Cunningham 22:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What Reader Award?

The Response section refers a Reader Award without describing it. I'm afraid this needs to be precised given the vagueness of the term.--Chealer 05:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm..

I've translated whole English article to Bosnian and you can find it on bs:Ubuntu (Linux distribucija). I've translated it few weeks ago and I'm continuing to update it ;) I'm wondering should we make a section about future releases (Edgy Knot - there is) that would include something like this. --Emx 15:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not sure a link the the Edgy wiki is appropriate though; it's only going to be there for another two months or so anyway and linking to wikis as references is always a bit awkward (self excused of course). Chris Cunningham 20:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Move?

It seems better to move this article to Ubuntu, and the current Ubuntu to Ubuntu (disambiguation). What do youthink? Yao Ziyuan 20:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Only reason I didn't do it is because moving existing pages around is a hassle. I fully approve of this change. Chris Cunningham 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded.--Chealer 07:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Concure. Neutralaccounting 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Why do you think it would be better? — Matt Crypto 05:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem appropriate to me. The original meaning is notable, and the Linux flavor doesn't seem that well-known beyond nerd circles. Twinxor t 14:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There are sensible redirects in place which will bring people to this article if they look for "Ubuntu Linux", which is probably how most people would go about searching for this article anyway, so I don't see a strong argument for the move. Ubernostrum 20:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Support move. Ubuntu Linux is a notable Linux distribution. The ideology doesn't even register in the dictionary (look up yourself). --Voidvector 14:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I went and looked up myself, and lo and behold, Ubuntu the ideology is in "the" dictionary (the Collins English Dictionary, for a start). I don't know of any dictionaries that contain a definition for Ubuntu Linux, however. Ubuntu Linux might be notable amongst free-software geeks, but things are very different in the wider world. — Matt Crypto 15:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: Bill Clinton spoke at Labour Party conference 2006 about Ubuntu the ideology, not the distro. The distro got minor mentions in the press coverage. Secretlondon 22:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dates format

At the request of Chris Cunningham, I am opening a discussion about date format x yy zzzz used to represent zzzz-yy-x which is used several times in the article. It appears, if not invalid, ambiguous to me, so I replaced it by the ISO format. If you would like more discussion, please precise.--Chealer 07:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous. This has been discussed to exhaustion with you on the Advanced Packaging Tool discussion page.

The date for Dapper is wrong. Dapper was out in June, not Aug. I could not figure out how to edit the opening though. Could someone fix? I think it was June 14th, but I know it was June. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.32.68.211 (talk • contribs)

It (6.06) was released on 1st June 2006. There was a maintenance release (6.06.1) in August 2006. Afaik shipit does ship 6.06.1. Secretlondon 00:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I've got a mediation case open with the recent editor for undiscussed and unwarranted reverts on Advanced Packaging Tool. I believe this is more of the same, as the summary used recently makes no indication that it rolls back a number of disputed changes made since his last edit. As these have not been discussed (and contravene policy in one case) I'm reverting to Lisamh's version with the following notes:

"relevant to the Christian faith" is less chatty than "geared trowards Christians";
Windows Media is only supported in non-free in Debian, and Ubuntu's Multiverse policies aren't a 1:1 with non-free's;
"GNOME" is still occasionally taken to expand to mean "GNU Network Object Model Environment", so duplicating "environment" would be a case of RAS Syndrome;
"Notes and references" reads better than "References and notes".

Please discuss these changes further if you'd like them re-added. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 08:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an Ubuntu Christian Edition - it's not a hoax and has been very controversial on the forums. However it's not an official derivative so I'm not sure how much attention we need to give it. Secretlondon 20:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Christian Edition might be worth listing. Is it the only unofficial edition? If it is listed it should definitely be listed as an unofficial version.--roger6106 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There are loads of them - there is even more than one Christian Ubuntu - Ichthux seems to have actual Ubuntu developers involved. Secretlondon 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Length

In response to a recent edit summary, "first expand that article, and then list it here", I'd like to point out that completeness (or even existence!) of the linked article is not a criterion for linking. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Twinxor t 20:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That said, there seems to have been considerably more discussion of UCE than actual adoption of it. Two forum threads and a dozen tech news posts generated from same do not necessarily mean that it holds particular value to the article. While I didn't agree with removing it (and indeed rewrote its inclusion to make it fit better when it was originally added), I would certainly suggest that it is more productive to work on UCE's own article for the time being than lobbying the inclusion of the current stab on this talk page. Chris Cunningham 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think if we include Ubuntu Christian Edition we have to include Ichthux which is based on Kubuntu, has Ubuntu members involved in it and has had mentions in Ubuntu community marketing materials. As both articles are a couple of sentences working on them would be more productive. There are also 101 distros which are derived from Ubuntu - we don't need to give promotional space to all of them. Secretlondon 22:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Kubuntu and Xubuntu

I think a large enough number of people use ubuntu to refer to the ubuntu family of distros (esp kubuntu but also Xubntu and Edubuntu) as well as the specific gnome version that the intro should have something along the lines of "ubuntu can also be used to refer to the ubuntu family of distributions including kubuntu, edubuntu and Xubuntu" or something similar. What do others think? The bellman 06:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this would make the article any clearer. Chris Cunningham 13:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hyperlinks to the variants may not have been present when you made your comment but I think they are sufficient to help folks learn their way around the Ubuntu variants. What I feel would be helpful are clear links to pages that provide a comparative analysis of each variant and how to load and boot two or more of these so people can decide for themselves. shanger 20:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

the link to the "5.10" release announcement is wrong

I did not immediately find the correct link, but the current link ("Ubuntu 5.10 announcement", https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-announce/2005-April/000023.html) is actually to the 5.04 release announcement

Free software?

I think we'll run into trouble with this, as Debian fanboys and others will continue to take snipes at such broad claims in the article, even if made in a template. To my mind, the field in the template is designed for operating systems where the license situation is crystal clear, e.g. one or two licenses used, not more. Most Linux distributions consist of a whole landscape of licenses that people have various feelings about. The template has at least improved in so far as one field that was meant to give an even vaguer view of the licensing rationale, has now been omitted. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the infobox really should give an overview. Can't we say "FOSS with proprietary components" or something? Twinxor t 10:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, Ubuntu itself is under a free software licence (insofar as that all code which makes its way into the distribution written by Canonical is free software). I don't think it helps the infobox to get too technical on the intricacies of Multiverse and Restricted, nor do I think shelving it entirely helps (by having an internal link to the licensing section). I'd rather have a slightly-too-simple answer in the infobox than no answer at all. As for the fanboys, nothing ever stops the fanboys. :) There's a guy trying to claim Mac OS X is free software right now. Chris Cunningham 10:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Then the question remains whether the link should point to Free software or Free software license. The latter is strictly more appropriate, but is a less developed article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the correct solution is to link to the current article and improve it (by removing all the advocacy) to the point where the licences article can be re-merged with it. Gah, it constantly amazes me that articles on fruit flies get to GA status after four anonymous editors are done with them, while core articles on the free software movement remain incoherent after years of editing... Chris Cunningham

That problem is specific to the free software movement, whose adherents are obsessive critics and can never agree on anything. Not to mention individualism, the occasional anarchistic tendencies, and the fact that moaning is simply fun and puts the blame on other people. Few people hate compromises with such passion. It's just that FOSS smugness gets dented when somebody disagrees over which license is best. Battle time.

When (if?) Apple start making laptops with a decent build quality (no toxic plastics, no overheating, exploding batteries and temperature-deformed chassis, no staining and electrocution, decent battery life, moderate weight, thermal paste applied correctly, and an OS with seamless suspend to disk) I won't be looking back. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

but but but, the HURD will be ready by then! ;) Chris Cunningham 12:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Column ref "layout bug"

Go on then, screenshots would be nice. Chris Cunningham 13:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Better still, I'll see if I can file a bug report, or find the bug in the database. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Filed here: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7622 Let's wait and see if it gets marked as duplicate before I upload any screenshots. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, yeah, it's just the URL wrapping? That's really the browser's responsibility. In Mozilla browsers this is the infamous "soft hyphens" bug. Is it okay to put the columns back if I go and wrap all those URLs? Chris Cunningham 15:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

These have now been fixed.

Nice work. I have to be honest - I just don't see the value of wrapping it into two columns when the entries already fill the lines (as they do). It doesn't save space, just increases visual clutter. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It might not save space on low resolutions, but on larger monitors it cuts quite a bit of vertical space. Mind if I put it back now? Chris Cunningham 16:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Try not to argue on the basis of your own experience. Remember Tobias Conradi arguing that the article had to be catted a certain way because his browsing experience would be affected otherwise? If it's just about your screen, then a better way to address the problem may be by keeping your own copy of the article somewhere. I operate at widths from 1366 to 1680 and I'm not pressing for the article to be changed so it looks good when viewed widescreen. Linguistics research shows that your reading speed slows down as lines get longer because your "eyes" can't easily find the beginning of the next line. So there is good reason not to even want to view Wikipedia at wide resolutions. Think One Laptop per Child and feel that by keeping single columns, you're doing something for the children of the world. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, isn't that an argument for splitting columns? Shortes lines? What am I to do, un-maximise my window when reading Wikipedia? If it doesn't negatively impact people on other browsers / low resolutions (which it doesn't), what's the problem? Chris Cunningham 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It does. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)