Talk:Ultamatix

I have restored the criticsm section, as I believe simply deleting it violated wikipedia's NPOV policy, if there are any further disputes please add a NPOV template to the page and continue the discussion here. --Snuxoll (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe this page has been edited with a very biased POV, reducing the accuracy of the information available here. Nearly every shred of criticism has been removed in the past two weeks. The criticism was well sourced and trustworthy. Elkbuntu (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That criticism section seems just an attack on ultamatix, why not just wait until some proper review points it's problems?

The criticism section was accurate, Ultamatix, like Automatix, is known to cause incompatible changes to an Ubuntu install, often resulting in problems, especially when upgrading to a new version of the distribution. It is not support or encouraged by the Ubuntu project, and as such you cannot expect support from official Ubuntu channels. Also, completely removing the criticism section is more biased than simply adding a POV check box above it, which would have been a more preferred action if you are worried about bias. --Snuxoll (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And lets look at the links:

• This does not even mention ultamatix, it's about automatix!
• Some blog of some guy... who is he? a known ubuntu developer or something? I dont't know... that's not a very good source. (and also see: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources)
• Another blog, I also don't know if it's notable in some sense...

This is the blog of a well known Ubuntu IRC operator, elkbuntu. --Snuxoll (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Discussion on Ubuntu forums, cleary not a good source (see: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources)
• Comments from the developer of automatix, not a very good source either, but it is something (and by the way, how can we really know it's the original developer writing that?)
• - Comments on the (positive!) softpedia review: cleary not a good one
• - Comments on the (positive!) Linux.com review: cleary not a good one

Meaning: that section needs some attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.64.197 (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)