title: Referee (association football)

text: The "dual system", has two referees with no assistants. The system is used some matches played under the rules of the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) in the United States, and in other youth or amateur matches. Both referees have equal authority, and the decision of one referee is binding on the other. Each referee is primarily responsible for a specific area of the field similar to those of the assistant referees in the diagonal system, except that the referees are allowed and encouraged to move away from the touch line into the field, particularly as play approaches the goal lines. Like the assistant referees in the diagonal system, each referee is responsible for patrolling one touch line and one goal line and determining possession for the restart if the ball goes out of play on either of those two boundaries.


title: Referee (association football)

text: Positioning in the dual system is similar to that used by officials in basketball: each referee is either termed the "lead" or the "trail", depending on the direction of the attack. If the attack is against the goal to the referee's right (when facing the field from their assigned touch line), then that referee is the lead, and the other is the trail. The lead is positioned ahead of the play, even with the second-to-last defender to the extent possible, while the trail is positioned behind the play. Both are responsible for calling fouls and misconduct and determining the restart when the ball goes out of play on one of their assigned boundary lines. Since the lead is in a better position to determine offside, the lead is responsible for calling offside, while the trail provides an extra monitor for fouls and misconduct while the lead's attention is focused on offside. When the attack changes direction, the trail becomes the lead and vice versa.


title: Referee (association football)

text: The double dual system uses three referees, all equipped with whistles, positioned much as in the traditional diagonal system of control mandated by IFAB. Each referee has the same authority for decision making. It is authorized in the United States for college and high school matches although it is rarely used.


title: GAVI

text: GAVI, officially Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (previously the GAVI Alliance, and before that the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) is a public–private global health partnership with the goal of increasing access to immunization in poor countries. In 2016, Gavi channeled more than half of total donor assistance for health, and most donor assistance for immunization, by monetary measure.


title: GAVI

text: Gavi supports the immunization of almost half the world's children. Gavi has helped immunize over 760 million children, preventing over 13 million deaths worldwide, helping increase diphtheria vaccine coverage in supported countries from 59% in 2000 to 81% in 2019, contributing to reducing child mortality by half. It also seeks to improve the economics of vaccines, negotiating bulk prices, supporting price discrimination, and reducing the commercial risks that manufacturers face when selling vaccines to the poor and developing vaccines. It also provides funding to strengthen health systems and train health workers across the developing world, though the effectiveness of its health-system-strengthening programs is disputed.


title: GAVI

text: Along with Global Health Initiatives (GHIs) in general, Gavi was described as innovative, effective, and less bureaucratic than multilateral government institutions like the WHO. Gavi programmes may produce quantified results within an election cycle, which is appealing to parties locked in an election cycle. One author described Gavi's approach to public health as business-oriented and technology-focused, using market-oriented measures, and seeking quantifiable results. Gavi follows a model termed the "Gates approach" or US-type approach. It contrasts with the approach typified by the Alma Ata Declaration, which focuses on the effects of political, social, and cultural systems on health.


title: GAVI

text: Gavi facilitates vaccinations in developing countries by working with donor governments, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the World Bank, the vaccine industry in both industrialised and developing countries, research and technical agencies, civil society, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and other private philanthropists. Gavi has observer status at the World Health Assembly. GAVI has been criticized for giving private donors more unilateral power to decide on global health goals, prioritizing new, expensive vaccines while putting less money and effort into expanding coverage of old, cheap ones, harming local healthcare systems, spending too much on subsidies to large, profitable pharmaceutical companies without reducing the prices of some vaccines, and its conflicts of interest in having vaccine manufacturers on its governance board. Gavi has taken steps to address some of these concerns.


title: GAVI

text: Gavi runs in five-year funding cycles which enables it to negotiate long-term deals with manufacturers, secure in the knowledge that funding will be available.


title: GAVI

text: Following the latest Global Vaccine Summit in June 2020 hosted in the UK, $8.8 billion (USD) was raised for the funding cycle 2021 to 2025; exceeding the target of $7.4 billion. This included $2 billion from the UK, $1.6 billion from the Gates Foundation and $1 billion from Norway.


title: GAVI

text: The UK government stated that this round of funding would mean that 300 million more children in lower-income countries are immunized for diseases including measles, polio and diphtheria by the end of 2025. Additionally, the funding will support health systems to withstand the impact of coronavirus and maintain the infrastructure necessary to roll out a future COVID-19 vaccine on a global scale.


title: GAVI

text: In the period of 2016–2020 over which US$9.3 billion had been received by Gavi, the UK was the largest donor, providing around 25% of total funding, with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the US and Norway close behind.


title: GAVI

text: Industrialised countries are GAVI's principal donors, providing approximately three-quarters of the total funding. All donor governments are represented on the Gavi Board through a constituency system (i.e. one donor country will represent several donors in their constituency).


title: GAVI

text: Public-sector workers and academics public health have criticized Gavi, and other global health initiatives (GHIs) with private-sector actors, saying that they have neither the democratic legitimacy nor the capacity to decide on public health agendas. Private donors often find it easier to exert influence through public-private partnerships like Gavi than through the traditional public sector. There is also criticism that staff at GHIs are often recruited directly from elite educational institutions, and have no experience in health care systems, especially those in poorer countries. Some WHO officials have privately criticized Gavi for infringing and weakening the WHO's mandate.


title: GAVI

text: Gavi was created in 2000 as a successor to the Children's Vaccine Initiative, which was launched in 1990. In August 2014, Gavi changed its name from "GAVI Alliance" and rebranded itself with a new logo deliberately reminiscent of UN organization logos, but using green as a mark of difference.


title: GAVI

text: Advance Market Commitments (AMCs) aim to overcome market failure by making an advance pledge that if a vaccine for a certain condition is developed, meeting certain specifications, donors will buy a certain number of doses. GAVI seeks to design its AMCs in a way that encourages a competitive market.


title: GAVI

text: GAVI's main objective is vaccination programs. Gavi has been the main donor funder of vaccination in low and middle income countries.


title: GAVI

text: In 2012, the first Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) "The right shot" report criticized Gavi for focusing on funding expensive new vaccines and neglecting to give children low-cost older ones. "Twenty percent of the world's children aren't even getting the basic vaccines", MSF's vaccine policy adviser said. MSF criticized the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), a WHO global collaboration of which Gavi is listed as a leader, as flawed for failing to help those 20%, which is some 19 million children.


title: GAVI

text: In 2011, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) recommended that Gavi change the ways in which it buy vaccines. They criticized the pneumococcal vaccine Advance Market Commitment, which means that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Pfizer get a subsidy as well as a per-unit payment for supplying doses of pneumococcal vaccine, as "corporate welfare that is scandalously expensive to donors and taxpayers" (in return, the companies committed to sell at least 30 million doses annually for ten years).


title: GAVI

text: The Advance Market Commitment had transferred far more money to GSK and Pfizer than the GAVI grants had transferred to low-cost suppliers for technology transfer and product development. MSF said that large pharmaceutical multinationals had been found to put very high markups on prices, and internationally certified vaccine could be made for about 40% less cost by smaller companies in India and China, despite patent-related obstacles. The duopoly allowed price discrimination; apart from charging slightly higher prices for GAVI, it charged unaffordable prices (about ten time the GAVI price) for middle-income countries too rich for GAVI aid. MSF also highlighted the success of the adapted vaccines program, which makes vaccines that are easier to deliver in remote areas (no need for a temperature-controlled supply chain, looser age restrictions, fewer shots, lower prices, etc.). They recommended that GAVI spend more money on adapted vaccines and on fostering competition, and less subsidizing large pharmaceutical companies.


title: GAVI

text: GAVI responded (on an unspecified date) by agreeing with MSF's goals, but regretting that MSF had discussed the issue in public as well as through its own close ties to GAVI. GAVI said that low prices required large, stable, high-volume deals, and "careful consideration and the support of key constituencies".


title: GAVI

text: In January 2015, MSF also called upon GSK and Pfizer to cut the price of the pneumococcal vaccine to US$5 per child in developing countries, a price they estimated as competitive. On January 27, they responded to Pfizer's commitment to reduce prices by 6% to $10 per child. They said that GSK and Pfizer were being paid $21 per child if GAVI subsidies were included, and the change would not greatly increase affordability for mid-wealth countries, those too rich for GAVI help but too poor to afford the vaccine. They said that, as Pfizer had made $16 billion in profits on pneumococcal vaccine in the last four years, a larger price cut would be affordable. In early 2016, they ran the "A fair shot" campaign to pressure GSK and Pfizer to drop prices. Pfizer said that they were already selling the vaccine at "far below" cost, while GSK said that the price enabled them to "just about" cover their costs, and "To discount it further would threaten our ability to supply it to these countries in the long-term".


title: GAVI

text: Bill Gates responded to MSF, saying "I think there is an organisation that's wonderful in every other respect, but every time we raise money to save poor children's lives, they put out a press release that says the price of these things should be zero". He said that criticizing pharmaceutical company pricing deterred them from investing in medicines for the developing world, and said that instead, pharmaceutical companies should be praised for price discrimination: "We get a great price for these things, which is tiered pricing... And that's how we manage to cut childhood death in half". He also advocated improving low-temperature supply chains (a.k.a. cold chains) in developing countries.


title: GAVI

text: In August 2019, MSF asked GAVI to stop giving Advance Market Commitment subsidies to GSK and Pfizer, whom they called a duopoly, and instead buy vaccine from a new third manufacturer, the Serum Institute of India, which offered the vaccine at 2/3 of the price then offered by the two. As the pneumococcal vaccine made up 40% of GAVI's vaccine purchasing costs, a 33% price drop would save GAVI billions (13% of its total vaccine purchasing costs). Pneumonia kills more than a quarter of children dying before the age of five, almost a million children each year. MSF said that GSK and Pfizer's pricing was exploitative and had left millions of children who could have been protected vulnerable. In December 2019, they reiterated this request, pointing out that the GSK/Pfizer pneumococcal vaccine often costs US$80 in middle-income countries too rich for GAVI support.


title: GAVI

text: In January 2020, MSF repeated the appeal for Gavi to bulk-buy the cheaper pneumococcal vaccine and vaccinate more of the 55 million children who are not vaccinated with it. They also appealed to the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the Gates Foundation, and said that Gavi could have done more to lower vaccine prices.


title: GAVI

text: In the 20-naughts, Gavi had intense internal debate about its role in vaccinations and in health systems strengthening (HSS). This was part of a broader discussion in healthcare about "vertical" approaches (often targeting specific diseases or behaviours) and "horizontal" ones, targeting broad programs such as primary care. At GAVI, some argued that vaccination could not be effectively carried out and sustained without strengthening healthcare, citing experiences in Gavi's vaccination programmes, where availability of staff, training, transport, and funds had hindered vaccination and reporting of vaccination coverage and stocks. There were also worries that Gavi was undermining and paralyzing health care systems. Others argued that HSS was a distraction from Gavi's single-minded focus on vaccines, and HSS was a nebulous concept that could not be defined and quantified.


title: GAVI

text: Major donors Norway and Britain supported HSS; USAID and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (and Bill Gates personally) opposed it. The majority of vaccine experts tended to favour technological rather than HSS-based approaches. Pharmaceutical industry representatives were supportive of HSS, possibly because they saw it as key to sustainable markets for their products. In 2005, a narrow vote brought Gavi to endorse an HSS goal. Up to a quarter of Gavi's funding was dedicated to "strengthening the capacity of integrated health systems to deliver immunisation", in practice it's been around 10%. After 2010, this funding went through a joint-venture Health Systems Funding Platform. Gavi's funding for this platform was conditional on the platform meeting vaccine coverage goals.


title: GAVI

text: As of the mid-2010s, few in Gavi were working on HSS, most of the former pro-HSS people had left, and some at Gavi dismissed HSS as PR to gain support from pro-HSS donors and counter criticisms that Gavi was harming healthcare systems. Such criticisms were generally not a topic that GAVI engaged with internally; the lack of internal engagement with the issue has been criticized. The disagreements were fairly intense; when Bill Gates came to visit GAVI headquarters, employees would hide the HSS-related posters so that he would not be reminded of this aspect of GAVI's work. Julian Lob-Levitt, who was Gavi's CEO between 2004 and 2010, was rumoured to have left over conflicts around his support for health system strengthening. Seth Berkley has been the CEO of Gavi since 2011, .


title: GAVI

text: It has been argued that GAVI's HSS spending in the early 2010s went to selective, disease-specific interventions repackaged as HSS. GAVI's HSS support at this time tended to focus on immunisation strengthening support, especially the building of cold chains. GAVI measured HSS using vaccination coverage as the sole indicator. It set the reporting indicators which were required of recipients of its funding; countries were not allowed to use similar indicators they already collected; this has been criticized for conferring a heavy accounting burden and diverting attention from indigenous goals. National government representatives did sit on the board, but had little influence; one European representative described the environment in the mid-2010s as "highly intimidating".


title: GAVI

text: A 2016 funding-allocation analysis of a sample of GAVI grants found that just over half the money went to purchasing drugs, equipment, supplies, and facilities (and 3% on bonuses and incentive pay,). These are short-term funding activities which the WHO does not consider HSS. The proportions were higher in less-developed healthcare systems. There was no spending on operational research, improving use of existing resources, or developing national drug and vaccine policies. In some grants, HSS funds were mostly spent on day-to-day operational costs, with no exit plan for the funding. GAVI subsequently (before 2018) shifted HSS aid to focus more on sustainability and the principles of the Paris Declaration for Aid Effectiveness.


title: GAVI

text: In 2011 Gavi added "shape the market for vaccines and other immunisation supplies" to its strategic goals.


title: GAVI

text: GAVI spent 15 years (2005–2020) with a program for shaping the pentavalent vaccine market to be more stable and competitive. The vaccine price fell with increased competition, and price discrimination declined. Whether Gavi met quantitative goals will be assessed in 2020.


title: GAVI

text: In April 2020, Gavi's CEO Seth Berkley commented that the COVID-19 pandemic needed a global response whereby the best global facilities for separate parts of the processes should then be integrated into a global process. He said he hoped that the G20 countries should work together with a budget of tens of billions of dollars, and that individual countries should be prepared for finished vaccines to be allocated according to greatest need.


title: GAVI

text: In September 2020, Gavi was announced as one of the organisations leading the COVAX vaccine allocation plan, created to ensure that any new COVID-19 vaccine would be shared equally between the world's richest and poorest countries.


title: GAVI

text: The following month, Gavi announced the approval of up to $150 million to help 92 low- and middle-income countries prepare for the delivery of future COVID-19 vaccines, including technical assistance and cold chain equipment.


title: GAVI

text: In January 2021, Seth Berkley announced that Gavi hoped to deliver 145 to 150 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines in the first quarter of 2021 and 500 million doses in the second quarter, and then 1.5 billion in the second half of the year.


title: GAVI

text: In January 2022, the Washington Post reported that following 309 million coronavirus vaccine doses being delivered in December 2021, COVAX had delivered approximately 910 million doses in 2021.


title: GAVI

text: Gavi was awarded the 2019 Lasker-Bloomberg Public Service Award for "providing sustained access to childhood vaccines around the globe, thus saving millions of lives, and for highlighting the power of immunization to prevent disease".


title: GAVI

text: Gavi was awarded the Sunhak Peace Prize in 2022 for Promoting vaccine equity at the forefront of COVID-19 by leading COVAX and Improving overall health of humanity by increasing access to vaccine for children in vulnerable countries.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu ( ) is a lightweight Linux distribution based on Ubuntu and uses the LXQt desktop environment in place of Ubuntu's GNOME desktop. Lubuntu was originally touted as being "lighter, less resource hungry and more energy-efficient", but now aims to be "a functional yet modular distribution focused on getting out of the way and letting users use their computer".


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu originally used the LXDE desktop, but moved to the LXQt desktop with the release of Lubuntu 18.10 in October 2018, due to the slow development of LXDE, losing support for GTK 2 as well as the more active and stable LXQt development without GNOME dependencies.


title: Lubuntu

text: The name "Lubuntu" is a portmanteau of "LXQt" and "Ubuntu". The LXQt name derives from the merger of the LXDE and Razor-qt projects, while the word "Ubuntu" means "humanity towards others" in the Zulu and Xhosa languages.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu received official recognition as a formal member of the Ubuntu family on 11 May 2011, commencing with Lubuntu 11.10, which was released on 13 October 2011.


title: Lubuntu

text: The LXDE desktop was first made available for Ubuntu in October 2008, with the release of Ubuntu 8.10 Intrepid Ibex. These early versions of Lubuntu, including 8.10, 9.04 and 9.10, were not available as separate ISO image downloads, and could only be installed on Ubuntu as separate "lubuntu-desktop" packages from the Ubuntu repositories. LXDE can also be retroactively installed in earlier Ubuntu versions.


title: Lubuntu

text: In February 2009, Mark Shuttleworth invited the LXDE project to become a self-maintained project within the Ubuntu community, with the aim of leading to a dedicated new official Ubuntu derivative to be called "Lubuntu".


title: Lubuntu

text: In March 2009, the Lubuntu project was started on Launchpad by Mario Behling, including an early project logo. The project also established an official Ubuntu wiki project page, that includes listings of applications, packages, and components.


title: Lubuntu

text: Initial testing in September 2009 by Linux Magazine reviewer Christopher Smart showed that Lubuntu's RAM usage was about half of that of Xubuntu and Ubuntu on a normal installation and desktop use, and two-thirds less on live CD use.


title: Lubuntu

text: In 2014, the project announced that the GTK+-based LXDE and Qt-based Razor-qt would be merging into the new Qt-based LXQt desktop and that Lubuntu would consequently be moving to LXQt. The transition was completed with the release of Lubuntu 18.10 in October 2018, the first regular release to employ the LXQt desktop.


title: Lubuntu

text: During the 2018 transition to becoming LXQt-based, the aim of Lubuntu was re-thought by the development team. It had previously been intended for users with older computers, typically ten years old or newer, but with the introduction of Windows Vista PCs, older computers gained faster processors and much more RAM, and by 2018, ten-year-old computers remained much more capable than had been the case five years earlier. As a result, the Lubuntu development team, under Simon Quigley, decided to change the focus to emphasize a well-documented distribution, based on LXQt "to give users a functional yet modular experience", that is lightweight by default and available in any language. The developers also decided to stop recommending minimum system requirements after the 18.04 LTS release.


title: Lubuntu

text: Developer Simon Quigley announced in August 2018 that Lubuntu 20.10 will switch to the Wayland display server protocol by default.


title: Lubuntu

text: In January 2019, the developers formed the "Lubuntu Council", a new body to formalize their previous organization, with its own written constitution.


title: Lubuntu

text: On 30 December 2009 the first Alpha 1 "Preview" version ISO for Lubuntu 10.04 "Lucid Lynx" was made available for testing, with Alpha 2 following on 24 January 2010. The first Beta was released on 20 March 2010 and the stable version of Lubuntu 10.04 was released on 2 May 2010, four days behind the main Ubuntu release date of 28 April 2010.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 10.04 was only released as a 32-bit ISO file, but users could install a 64-bit version through the 64-bit Mini ISO and then install the required packages.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 10.04 was not intended to be a long-term support (LTS) release, unlike Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx, and was only going to be supported for 18 months. However, since the infrastructure of Ubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" (and thus Lubuntu 10.10) dropped support for i586 processors, including VIA C3, AMD K6, and AMD Geode/National Semiconductor CPUs, the release of Lubuntu 10.10 prompted the community to extend support until April 2013 for Lubuntu 10.04, as if it were a long term support version.


title: Lubuntu

text: In reviewing Lubuntu 10.04 Alpha 1 in January 2010, Joey Sneddon of OMG Ubuntu wrote, "Not having had many preconceptions regarding LXDE/Lubuntu i found myself presently surprised. It was pleasant to look at, pleasant to use and although I doubt I would switch from GNOME to LXDE, it can give excellent performance to those who would benefit from doing so." In writing about the final 10.10 release, on 10 October 2010 Sneddon termed it "A nimble and easy-to-use desktop".


title: Lubuntu

text: Writing about Lubuntu 10.04 in May 2010 Damien Oh of "Make Tech Easier" said: "If you are looking for a lightweight alternative to install in your old PC or netbook, Lubuntu is a great choice. You won’t get any eye candy or special graphical effects, but what you get is fast speed at a low cost. It’s time to put your old PC back to work."


title: Lubuntu

text: Also reviewing Lubuntu 10.04 in May 2010 Robin Catling of Full Circle magazine said: "The first thing that impresses on running Lubuntu on my modest Compaq Evo laptop (Pentium-M, 512 MB RAM) is the small memory footprint... It beats Karmic on Gnome, and Xubuntu on Xfce, by a mile. The Evo used to take 60 seconds-plus to boot to the desktop, LXDE takes exactly 30. Yet you're not restricted; gtk2 applications are well supported, and Synaptic hooks up to the Ubuntu repositories for package management (so you can pull down Open Office to replace the default Abi-Word without crippling the machine)." Catling did note of the file manager, "The PCManFM file manager needs a little more maturity to compete with Thunar, but it's a competent and robust


title: Lubuntu

text: In June 2010 Jim Lynch reviewed Lubuntu 10.04, saying, "One thing you’ll notice about using the Lubuntu desktop is that it’s fast. Very, very fast. Even on an underpowered machine, Lubuntu should perform very well. It’s one of the best things about this distro; it leaves behind the bloated eye candy that can sometimes bog down GNOME and KDE... I didn’t run into any noticeable problems with Lubuntu. It was very fast and stable, and I didn’t see noticeable bugs or problems. I hate it when this happens since it’s so much more interesting for my readers when I run into one nasty problem or another. Hopefully the next version of Lubuntu will be chock full of horrendous problems and bugs. Just kidding."


title: Lubuntu

text: In September 2010 lead developer Julien Lavergne announced that the Lubuntu project had not been granted official status as a derivative of Ubuntu as part of the Ubuntu 10.04 release cycle, but that work would continue on this goal for Ubuntu 10.10. Lavergne explained the reasons as "there is still a resource problem on Canonical /Ubuntu infrastructure, which was not resolved during this cycle. Also, they are writing a real process to integrate new member in the Ubuntu family, but it’s still not finished."


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 10.10 was released on schedule on 10 October 2010, the same day as Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat, but it was not built with the same underlying infrastructure as Ubuntu 10.10. Developer Julien Lavergne said about it, "Lubuntu is actually not part of the Ubuntu family, and not build with the current Ubuntu infrastructure. This release is considered as a "stable beta", a result that could be a final and stable release if we was included in the Ubuntu family." Version 10.10 introduced new artwork to the distribution, including new panel and menu backgrounds, a new Openbox theme, new Lubuntu menu logo, splash images and desktop wallpaper. Lubuntu 10.10 was not accepted as an official Ubuntu derivative at this release point due to "a lack of integration with the infrastructure Canonical and Ubuntu" but work is continuing towards that goal.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 10.10 was only released as a 32-bit ISO file, but users could install a 64-bit version through the 64-bit Mini ISO and then install the required packages.


title: Lubuntu

text: Developer Julien Lavergne wrote that while 10.10 incorporated many changes over 10.04, not all of the changes were considered improvements. The improvements included a new theme designed by Rafael Laguna, the incorporation of "xpad" for note taking, "Ace-of-Penguins" games, "LXTask" the LXDE task manager in place of the Xfce application, replacing the "epdfview" PDF reader with Evince due to a memory leak problem and removing "pyneighborhood". The minuses included a last-minute rewrite of the installer to integrate it properly, which resulted in some installation instability and the raising of the minimum installation RAM from 180 MB to 256 MB. The other issue was the incorporation of the Ubuntu Update Manager which increased RAM usage by 10 MB. Lubuntu 10.04 had no indication of updates being available, so this was deemed necessary.


title: Lubuntu

text: The minimum system requirements for Lubuntu 10.10 were described by Mario Behling as "comparable to Pentium II or Celeron systems with a 128 MB RAM configuration, which may yield a slow yet usable system with lubuntu." Chief developer Julien Lavergne stated that the minimum RAM to install Lubuntu 10.10 is 256 MB.


title: Lubuntu

text: In reviewing Lubuntu 10.10 right after its release in October 2010, Jim Lynch of "Eye on Linux" said "Lubuntu’s biggest appeal for me is its speed; and it’s no disappointment in that area. Applications load and open quickly, and my overall experience with Lubuntu was quite positive. I detected no stability problems, Lubuntu 10.10 was quite solid and reliable the entire time I used it." Lynch did fault the choice of Synaptic as the package manager: "One of the strange things about Lubuntu is that it only offers Synaptic as its package manager. Xubuntu 10.10, on the other hand, offers the Ubuntu Software Center as well as Synaptic. I’m not sure why the Ubuntu Software Center is missing from Lubuntu; it would make a lot of sense to include it since it is a much easier and more attractive way to manage software. Synaptic gets the job done, but it’s less friendly to new users and can’t match the Ubuntu Software Center in terms of usability and comfort."


title: Lubuntu

text: By mid-December 2010, Lubuntu had risen to 11th place on DistroWatch's six-month list of most popular Linux distributions out of 319 distributions, right behind Puppy Linux and well ahead of Xubuntu, which was in 36th place. In reviewing Linux distribution rankings for DistroWatch in early January 2011 for the year 2010 versus 2009, Ladislav Bodnár noted, "Looking through the tables, an interesting thing is the rise of distributions that use the lightweight, but full-featured LXDE desktop or the Openbox window manager. As an example, Lubuntu now comfortably beats Kubuntu in terms of page hits..."


title: Lubuntu

text: The project announced the development schedule in November 2010 and Lubuntu 11.04 was released on time on 28 April 2011.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 11.04 was only released as a 32-bit ISO file, but users could install a 64-bit version through the 64-bit Mini ISO and then install the required packages. An unofficial 64-bit ISO of 11.04 was also released by Kendall Weaver of Peppermint OS.


title: Lubuntu

text: Improvements in Lubuntu 11.04 included replacing Aqualung with Audacious as the default music player, elimination of the hardware abstraction layer, introducing movable desktop icons, the Ubuntu font being used by default, improved menu translations and reorganized menus. The release also introduced a new default theme and artwork designed by Raphael Laguna, known as Ozone, which is partly based on Xubuntu’s default "Bluebird" theme.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 11.04 can be run with as little as 128 MB of RAM, but requires 256 MB of RAM to install using the graphical installer.


title: Lubuntu

text: While Lubuntu 11.04 had not completed the process for official status as a member of the Ubuntu family, Mario Behling stated: "The next goals of the project are clear. Apart from constantly improving the distribution, the lubuntu project aims to become an official flavour of Ubuntu."


title: Lubuntu

text: In reviewing Lubuntu 11.04 just after its release, Joey Sneddon of OMG Ubuntu commented on its look: "Lubuntu’s 'traditional' interface will be of comfort to those agitated by the interface revolution heralded in GNOME 3 and Ubuntu Unity; it certainly won’t appeal to 'bling' fans! But that’s not to say attention hasn’t been paid to the appearance. The new default theme by Raphael Laguna and the use of the Ubuntu font helps to give the sometimes-basic-feeling OS a distinctly professional look." On the subject of official status Sneddon said, "Lubuntu has long sought official sanction from the Ubuntu Project family to be classed as an official 'derivative' of Ubuntu, earning a place alongside Kubuntu and Xubuntu. With such an accomplished release as Lubuntu 11.04 the hold out on acceptance remains disappointing if expected."


title: Lubuntu

text: In a review on 12 May 2011 Jim Lynch of "Desktop Linux Reviews" faulted 11.04 for not using the Ubuntu Software Center, the lack of alternative wallpapers and the use of AbiWord in place of LibreOffice. He did praise Lubuntu, saying: "speed is one of the nice things about Lubuntu; even on a slow or older system it’s usually quite fast. It’s amazing what you can achieve when you cut out the unnecessary eye-candy and bloat."


title: Lubuntu

text: Also on 12 May 2011, Koen Vervloesem writing in "Linux User & Developer" criticized the applications bundled with Lubuntu, saying "Some of the software choices are rather odd, however. For instance, Chromium is the default web browser, which is a sensible move for a distro aimed at low-end computers, but the developers also ship Firefox, so Lubuntu shows both web browsers in the Internet menu. Also, the default screenshot program is scrot, but this is a command-line program and it is not shown in the Accessories menu, so not everyone will find it. Another odd choice is that you install your applications with Synaptic: by default Lubuntu doesn’t have the Ubuntu Software Center, which has been the preferred software installation program in Ubuntu for a good few releases now. These are just minor inconveniences, though, since you get access to the full Ubuntu software repositories, meaning you can install your favourite applications in a blink of the eye."


title: Lubuntu

text: One month after its release, Lubuntu 11.04 had risen to ninth place on the DistroWatch 30-day list of most popular distributions.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 11.10 was the first version of Lubuntu with official sanction as a member of the Ubuntu family. As part of this status change Lubuntu 11.10 used the latest Ubuntu infrastructure and the ISO files were hosted by Ubuntu. The release did not include many new features as work focused on integration with Ubuntu instead.


title: Lubuntu

text: In September 2011 it was announced that work on a "Lubuntu Software Center" was progressing. The Ubuntu Software Center is too resource intensive for Lubuntu and so Lubuntu has been using the less user-friendly Synaptic package manager in recent releases. The development of a new lightweight application manager for Lubuntu is intended to rectify this problem, although users can, of course, install the Ubuntu Software Center using Synaptic.


title: Lubuntu

text: Changes in Lubuntu 11.10 include that it was built with the Ubuntu official build system using the current packages by default, alternative install and 64-bit ISOs were provided, use of xfce4-power-manager, a new microblog client, pidgin-microblog and a new theme by Rafael Laguna.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 11.10 requires a minimum of 128 MB of RAM to run and 256 MB of RAM to install with the graphic installer. The recommended minimum RAM to run a live CD session is 384 MB.


title: Lubuntu

text: The Lubuntu 11.10 ISO file contains a known issue that causes it to fail to load a live CD session on some hardware, instead loading to a command prompt. Users are required to enter codice_1 at the prompt to run the live CD session.


title: Lubuntu

text: In a review of Lubuntu 11.10 on "PC Mech", writer Rich Menga described it as "simple, rock-solid, reliable, trustworthy". He added "Ubuntu at this point is suffering from major bloat on the interface side of things, and you can even say that about Xubuntu at this point – but not Lubuntu, as it gets back to what a great Linux distro should be."


title: Lubuntu

text: By the end of October 2011 Lubuntu had risen to seventh place on the DistroWatch one month popularity list.


title: Lubuntu

text: In a review in Linux User and Developer in November 2011, Russell Barnes praised Lubuntu 11.10 for its low system hardware requirements, for providing an alternative to GNOME and KDE, saying that its "aesthetic appeal and functionality is minimally compromised in its effort to be as sleek and light as possible". Barnes noted that Mark Shuttleworth may have been wise to offer full status to Lubuntu for this release given the "fuss and bluster surrounding Unity". Of the aesthetics he stated "the now trademark pale blue of the desktop is almost hypnotic. It’s incredibly clean, clear and logically laid out – a user experience a million miles away from that of Ubuntu 11.10’s Unity or GNOME Shell counterparts. In comparison there’s an almost cleansing nature about its simplicity." Barnes rated it as 4/5 and concluded "While it’s not as flexible or pretty as [GNOME 2], Lubuntu 11.10 has certainly got everything you need to keep your computer happy and your desktop clean and clutter-free"


title: Lubuntu

text: Igor Ljubuncic in "Dedoimedo" said about Lubuntu 11.10, "Lubuntu is meant to offer a valid alternative to the heavier KDE and Unity flavors. It tries bravely and fails heroically. The only advantage is the somewhat reduced system resource usage, but it is more than triply negatively compensated by the drawbacks of the desktop environment as well as the incomplete integration. Then, there you have Samba-related crashes, no laptop hotkeys, jumbled system tray icons, low battery life. If you want to be really mean, you could add the lack of customization, an average software arsenal, and a dozen other smaller things that get in the way... All in all, Lubuntu could work for you, but it's not exciting or spectacular in any way and packages a handsome bag of problems that you can easily avoid by using the main release... I would not recommend this edition... Grade: 6/10."


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 12.04 was released on 26 April 2012. Planning for this release took place at the Ubuntu Developer Summit held in early November 2011. Changes planned at that time for the release included the use of LightDM as the X display manager and of Blueman instead of gnome-bluetooth for managing bluetooth devices.


title: Lubuntu

text: The Lubuntu Software Center was added with this release to provide a more user-friendly graphical interface for managing applications. Synaptic package manager is still installed by default and allows users to manage all packages in the system. GDebi allows the installation of downloaded .deb packages.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 12.04 was released with the Linux v3.2.14 Linux kernel and also introduced a large number of bug fixes, particularly in the LX panel and in the PCManFM file manager. The Ubuntu Backports repository was enabled by default, meaning backport packages were not installed by default, but once installed were automatically upgraded to newer versions.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 12.10 was released on 18 October 2012 and includes a new version of the session manager, with more customization and integration options. It also includes a new version of the PCMan File Manager, with external thumbnail support. This version has new artwork, including a new wallpaper, a new icon set entitled "Box" and adjusted GTK themes. The notification-daemon has been replaced by xfce4-notifyd on the default installation. Previous versions of Lubuntu did not have a GUI search function and so the Catfish search utility was added to the default installation.


title: Lubuntu

text: This version of Lubuntu uses the Linux kernel 3.5.5, Python 3.2 and OpenJDK7 as the default Java implementation.


title: Lubuntu

text: The installation requires a CPU with Physical Address Extensions (PAE), which indicates an Intel Pentium Pro and newer CPU, except most 400 MHz-bus versions of the Pentium M. In the case of PowerPCs, it was tested on a PowerPC G4 running at 867 MHz with 640 MB RAM and will also run on all Intel-based Apple Macs. There is also a version that supports the ARM architecture, but the developers currently only provide installation instructions for one ARM-based device (the Toshiba AC100 netbook).


title: Lubuntu

text: This release of Lubuntu does not support UEFI Secure Boot, unlike Ubuntu 12.10, which would have allowed it to run on hardware designed for Windows 8. Lubuntu 12.10 could be run on UEFI secure boot hardware by turning off the secure boot feature.


title: Lubuntu

text: This version only incorporated some minor changes over Lubuntu 12.10, including a new version of the PCManFM file manager which incorporates a built-in search utility. Due to this particular file manager update, the Catfish search utility was no longer required and was deleted. Lubuntu 13.04 also introduced some artwork improvements, with new wallpaper offerings, new icons and a new installation slideshow.


title: Lubuntu

text: The minimum system requirements for Lubuntu 13.04 are a Pentium II or Celeron CPU with PAE support, 128 MB of RAM and at least 2 GB of hard-drive space. This release also still supports PowerPC architecture, requiring a G4 867 MHz processor and 640 MB of RAM minimum.


title: Lubuntu

text: Julien Lavergne announced in June 2013 that Lubuntu 13.10 would ship with Firefox as its default browser in place of Chromium. This release also used LightDM for screen locking and included zRam.


title: Lubuntu

text: In reviewing the beta release in September 2013, Joey Sneddon of OMG Ubuntu said: "Lubuntu has never looked as good as it does in this latest beta." He noted that the new "box" icon theme had been expanded, progress bar colours softened and window controls enlarged along with a sharpened "start button".


title: Lubuntu

text: The final release incorporated only minor changes over 13.04. It included a new version of PCManFM that includes a file search function, which allowed the Catfish desktop search to be removed. There was also new artwork included and bug fixes for gnome-mplayer and the gpicview image viewer.


title: Lubuntu

text: In reviewing Lubuntu 13.10, Jim Lynch said "Sometimes less can be much, much more when it comes to Linux distributions. Lubuntu 13.10 offers some of the advantages of Ubuntu but in a much more minimalist package."


title: Lubuntu

text: Tentative plans were announced in April 2013 to make Lubuntu 14.04 a long term support release. In November 2013 it was confirmed that 14.04 would be the first Lubuntu LTS release with three years of support. This release also saw xscreensaver replaced by light-locker screen lock.


title: Lubuntu

text: Released on 17 April 2014, Lubuntu 14.04 included just minor updates over version 13.10, along with a more featured file manager.


title: Lubuntu

text: Download media for Lubuntu 14.04 is available in PC 32 bit, PC 64 bit, Mac Intel 64 bit and Mac PowerPC. For early Intel Macs with a 32 bit Core solo processor, a 32-bit PC image is available.


title: Lubuntu

text: In reviewing Lubuntu 14.04 LTS Silviu Stahie of Softpedia noted, "because it uses a similar layout with the one found on the old and defunct Windows XP, this OS is considered to be a very good and appropriate replacement for Microsoft's operating system."


title: Lubuntu

text: On 1 June 2014 Jim Lynch reviewed Lubuntu 14.04 LTS and concluded, "Lubuntu 14.04 LTS performed very well for me. It was fast and quite stable while I was using it. I had no problems running any applications and the system as a whole lived up to its reputation as a great choice for Ubuntu minimalists... The LXDE desktop environment is very different than Unity for Ubuntu or GNOME 3 in Ubuntu GNOME. It’s a traditional desktop which means it’s very quick and easy to learn how to use. And if you are someone that doesn’t like Unity or GNOME then LXDE in Lubuntu 14.04 LTS might be just what the doctor ordered. You’ll get all the benefits of Ubuntu, but without the discomfort of the Unity interface."


title: Lubuntu

text: This release, on 23 October 2014, was originally intended to feature a version of LXDE based upon the Qt toolkit and called LXQt, but development of the latter was delayed and the feature was not implemented in time.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 14.10 incorporated general bug fixes in preparation for the implementation of LXQt, updated LXDE components and new artwork, including more icons and a theme update.


title: Lubuntu

text: Silviu Stahie, writing for Softpedia, stated, "One of the main characteristics of Lubuntu is the fact that it's fast, even on older computers. Basically, Lubuntu is able to run on anything built in the last decade, and there are very few operating systems out there that can claim the same thing... Just like its Ubuntu base, Lubuntu 14.10 has seen very few important visual modifications, although many packages have been updated under the hood. The theme and the icons have been updated, but the developers are preparing to make the switch to LXQt, a project that is still in the works."


title: Lubuntu

text: Igor Ljubuncic in "Dedoimedo" said about Lubuntu 14.10, "There's nothing functionally wrong with Lubuntu. It's not bad. It's simply not interesting. It's meat without flavor, it's a hybrid car, it's accounting lessons at the local evening school, it's morning news, it's a visit to Pompei while blindfolded. There's no excitement... I liked this desktop environment in the past, but it's stagnated. It hasn't evolved at all, and its competitors have left it far behind. And that reflects poorly on Lubuntu, which, despite a calm and stable record of spartan behavior, has left with me an absolute zero of emotional attachment toward it."


title: Lubuntu

text: Released on 23 April 2015, Lubuntu 15.04 consisted primarily of bug fixes, as the project prepared for the planned switch to LXQt in Lubuntu 15.10. The Lubuntu "Box" theme was updated and merged into the "Ubuntu Light" theme to incorporate the most recent GTK+ features, including new header bars for GNOME native applications, plus improved artwork and icons.


title: Lubuntu

text: The minimum system requirements for this release include: 512 MB of RAM, with 1 GB recommended, plus a Pentium 4 or Pentium M or AMD K8 processor. The release notes indicated about graphics cards: "Nvidia, AMD/ATI/Radeon and Intel work out of the box".


title: Lubuntu

text: Marius Nestor of Softpedia noted, "...the Lubuntu 15.04 operating system comes now with updated artwork, which includes an updated theme, more beautiful icons, and an updated GTK+ infrastructure for better compatibility with Qt applications."


title: Lubuntu

text: Released on 22 October 2015, Lubuntu 15.10 was originally planned to move to LXQt and its Qt libraries in place of the GTK+ libraries used by LXDE, but in June 2015 this was delayed to a future release. The release ended up as a minor bug fix and application version update.


title: Lubuntu

text: Changes in this versions included new artwork, iBus replaced by Fcitx, allowing fonts for Chinese, Japanese and Korean to be included. lubuntu-extra-sessions is now optional instead of default.


title: Lubuntu

text: The minimum system requirements for this release stated, "For advanced internet services like Google+, Youtube, Google Docs and Facebook, your computer needs about 1 GB RAM. For local programs like Libre Office and simple browsing habits, your computer needs about 512 MB RAM ... The minimum specification for CPU is Pentium 4 or Pentium M or AMD K8. Older processors are too slow and AMD K7 has problems with flash video ... Nvidia, AMD/ATI/Radeon and Intel work out of the box, or the system can be tweaked to work fairly easily.


title: Lubuntu

text: Joey Sneddon of OMG Ubuntu humorously noted, "Lubuntu 15.10 is another highly minor bug fix release."


title: Lubuntu

text: Released on 21 April 2016, Lubuntu 16.04 is a Long Term Support (LTS) version, supported for three years until April 2019. It is the second Lubuntu LTS version, preceded by 14.04 in April 2014.


title: Lubuntu

text: This release retains the LXDE desktop and did not make the transition to LXQt, to allow LXQt to be better tested in later non-LTS releases.


title: Lubuntu

text: This release is too large a file to fit on a CD and requires a DVD or USB flash drive installation. Lubuntu 16.04 LTS is primarily a bug-fix release and includes few new features. It does have updated artwork, however. The system requirements include 512 MB of RAM (1 GB recommended) and a Pentium 4, Pentium M, AMD K8 or newer CPU.


title: Lubuntu

text: The first point release, 16.04.1, was released on 21 July 2016. The release of Lubuntu 16.04.2 was delayed a number of times, but it was eventually released on 17 February 2017. Lubuntu 16.04.3 was released on 3 August 2017. Lubuntu 16.04.4 was delayed from 15 February 2018 and was released on 1 March 2018. Lubuntu 16.04.5 was released on 2 August 2018.


title: Lubuntu

text: On 8 March 2017 a new version of Firefox, 52.0, arrived through the update process. This version removed ALSA audio support from Firefox in favour of PulseAudio, something initially not mentioned in the Mozilla release notes. Since Lubuntu 16.04 LTS shipped with only ALSA audio, this broke the default Lubuntu audio system in the default Lubuntu browser. In response to a bug filed, Mozilla developers declined to fix the issue.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 16.10 was released on 13 October 2016. It uses LXDE and not LXQt. The implementation of LXQt was delayed from this release until 17.04.


title: Lubuntu

text: The release also features just small bug fixes, updated LXDE components and updated artwork, particularly the wallpaper.


title: Lubuntu

text: The developers' recommended system requirements for this release were, "for advanced internet services like Google+, YouTube, Google Drive, and Facebook, your computer needs at least 1 GB of RAM. For local programs like LibreOffice and simple browsing habits, your computer needs at least 512 MB of RAM. The minimum specification for CPU is Pentium 4 or Pentium M or AMD K8. Older processors are too slow and the AMD K7 has problems with Flash video."


title: Lubuntu

text: Joey Sneddon of OMG Ubuntu noted that there are very few new features in Lubuntu 16.10, but that it no longer uses the Lubuntu Software Centre, having switched to GNOME Software, as Ubuntu also has. Sneddon wrote, "Lubuntu 16.10 is largely the same as Lubuntu 16.04 LTS as work on switching to the LXQt desktop – expected next release – continues." In a July 2016 article, Sneddon singled out the new wallpaper design for Lubuntu 16.10, saying, "the jaggedy geometric layout of the new backdrop stands out as one of the more visually distinct to ship in recent years".


title: Lubuntu

text: Marius Nestor of Softpedia wrote: "it appears that there are a lot of known issues for this release, so if you're using Lubuntu 16.04 LTS (Xenial Xerus), we don't recommend upgrading to Lubuntu 16.10, or at least read about them before attempting an upgrade operation."


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 17.04 was released on 13 April 2017. Like previous releases it uses LXDE and not LXQt, as the implementation of LXQt in Lubuntu was delayed once again, this time until 17.10.


title: Lubuntu

text: This release incorporated Linux Kernel 4.10, updated LXDE components, general bug fixes and new artwork. The recommended system requirements included 1 GB of RAM (512 MB minimum) and a minimum of a Pentium 4, Pentium M or AMD K8 processor.


title: Lubuntu

text: Joey Sneddon of OMG Ubuntu said of this release, that it is "compromised mainly of bug fixes and core app and system updates rather than screenshot-able new features."


title: Lubuntu

text: This release was a general bug fix release as the project prepares for the implementation of LXQt. Also included were new versions of the LXDE components and new artwork. The minimum system requirements for this release remained 512 MB of RAM (with 1 GB recommended) and at least a Pentium 4, Pentium M or AMD K8 processor.


title: Lubuntu

text: An alternate version entitled Lubuntu Next 17.10 was provided with the LXQt 0.11.1 desktop. "While this release is available to install... we do NOT recommend that people use it in production unless they are aware of the somewhat critical bugs associated (which are more than 10 at the point of writing this). It also wouldn’t be a bad idea to be in contact with us as well," wrote Lubuntu developer Simon Quigley.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 18.04 is a long term support version that was released on 26 April 2018. Like all past releases, it uses the LXDE desktop, although work continued to move towards deployment of the LXQt desktop, referred to as "Lubuntu Next". 18.04 was the last release of Lubuntu to use the LXDE desktop as 18.10 moved to using LXQt.


title: Lubuntu

text: System requirements for Lubuntu 18.04 LTS included a minimum of 1 GB of RAM, although 2 GB was recommended for better performance, plus a Pentium 4, Pentium M, or AMD K8 CPU or newer. The RAM requirements increased from Lubuntu 17.10.


title: Lubuntu

text: In a 14 May 2018 announcement the project developers confirmed that Lubuntu would transition to the LXQt desktop for Lubuntu 18.10. It was released on 18 October 2018 and included LXQt. This transition was planned for after the release of Lubuntu 18.04 LTS, to allow testing and development over three regular releases before the first long term support version, Lubuntu 20.04 LTS, is released with LXQt. The project also changed its logo in early April 2018, in anticipation of this move.


title: Lubuntu

text: In transitioning to LXQt this release uses LXQt 0.13.0, based upon Qt 5.11.1. Applications include LibreOffice 6.1.1 office suite, the VLC media player 3.0.4 player, Discover Software Center 5.13.5 and FeatherPad 0.9.0 text editor. KDE's Falkon 3.0.1 had been beta tested as the default web browser, but was found to lack stability and was replaced with Firefox 63.0.


title: Lubuntu

text: The installer for 18.10 is the Calamares system installer, in place of the previous Ubiquity installer.


title: Lubuntu

text: Starting with this release the developers no longer make recommendations for minimum system requirements.


title: Lubuntu

text: In reviewing the beta version of 18.10 in May 2018, Marius Nestor of Softpedia wrote: "We took the first Lubuntu 18.10 daily build with LXQt for a test drive, and we have to say that we're impressed ... The layout is very simple, yet stylish with a sleek dark theme by default and a single panel at the bottom of the screen from where you can access everything you need ... we give it a five-star rating."


title: Lubuntu

text: Writing after the official release on 20 October 2018, Marius Nestor of Softpedia noted: "After many trials and tribulations, and a lot of hard work, the Lubuntu team finally managed to ship a release with the LXQt desktop environment by default instead of LXDE (Lightweight X11 Desktop Environment), which was used by default on all Lubuntu releases from the beginning of the project. We also believe LXQt is the future of the LXDE desktop environment, which uses old and soon deprecated technologies, so we welcome Lubuntu 18.10 (Cosmic Cuttlefish) with its shiny LXQt 0.13.0 desktop environment by default, built against the latest Qt 5.11.1 libraries and patched with upstream's improvements."


title: Lubuntu

text: In reviewing Lubuntu 18.10, DistroWatch's Jesse Smith wrote: "I have mixed feelings about this release of Lubuntu. On the one hand most of the features worked well. The distribution was easy to install, I liked the theme, and the operating system is pretty easy to use. There were a few aspects I didn't like, usually programs or settings modules I felt were overly complex or confusing compared to their counterparts on other distributions. For the most part though, Lubuntu does a nice job of being a capable, relatively lightweight distribution ... On the whole, I think the transition from LXDE to LXQt has gone smoothly. There are a few choices I didn't like, and a few I did, but mostly the changes were minor. I think most people will be able to make the leap between the two desktops fairly easily. I think a few settings modules still need polish and I'd like to see Discover replaced with just about any other modern software manager, but otherwise this felt like a graceful (and mostly positive) move from 18.04 to 18.10 and from LXDE to LXQt."


title: Lubuntu

text: A detailed review of Lubuntu 18.10, Mahmudin Asharin, writing in "Ubuntu Buzz", found only a few faults in the release, in particular the network manager. He concluded, "For most users, I recommend Lubuntu 18.04 LTS instead for the sake of usability and support duration. For first timer who installed/want to install 18.10 LXQt, go ahead and you will get beautiful user interface and very nice experience, but I recommend you to use Wicd instead of default network manager. For LXQt desktop pursuer, Lubuntu 18.10 is a great example of LXQt system. Try it first."


title: Lubuntu

text: A review in Full Circle magazine noted, "Overall LXQt, as seen in Lubuntu 18.10, is ready for day-to-day use, while there is also still room for ongoing refinement. Introducing LXQt in Lubuntu 18.10 was a careful choice by the Lubuntu developers. Coming right after Lubuntu 18.04 LTS, the final LXDE release, it gives developers three "standard" releases to continue to polish LXQt before the first LTS release..."


title: Lubuntu

text: This release marked the first Lubuntu version without 32-bit support. Lubuntu developer Simon Quigley wrote in December 2018:


title: Lubuntu

text: This release featured LXQt 0.14.1, based upon Qt 5.12.2. It included working full-disk encryption, easier customization of the Calamares installer configurations by employing XDG configuration variables and Austrian keymapping. Minimum installation RAM was reduced to 500 MB. Other changes include Trash, Home, Computer, and Network icons added to the desktop, split view in PCManFM-Qt, exif data display in the image viewer, LXImage-Qt and touchpad settings fixed over 18.10.


title: Lubuntu

text: In a review Softpedia writer Marius Nestor described the use of LXQt 0.14.1, employed in Lubuntu 19.04, as "a much-improved and richer LXQt experience".


title: Lubuntu

text: A review in Full Circle magazine concluded, "Lubuntu 18.10 wasn’t ready for prime time, but 19.04 is. LXQt looks fresh and new, and everything works right from the installation; it even runs fine from a DVD live session. I didn’t find anything that needs fixing in 19.04. If not for the nine-month support period for this regular release, it could have been a long term support release, at least for the quality of the user experience and the lack of bugs."


title: Lubuntu

text: A review in "FOSS Post" by M. Hanny Subbagh in September 2019, entitled "Lubuntu, A Once Great Distro, Is Falling Behind" concluded "Most of the criticism you have seen in this article is coming from the LXQt desktop environment. It’s understandable that any new piece of software will have bugs/issues in the first few years of its life cycle, but the LXQt desktop still needs a long round of polished updated to make it match the other desktops such as GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE and MATE. Meanwhile, if you are interested in trying Lubuntu, we recommend that you stick to the 18.04LTS version, which comes with LXDE."


title: Lubuntu

text: A review by Igor Ljubuncic in "Dedoimedo" concluded, "Lubuntu 19.04 Disco Dingo feels ... raw. Unfinished. Half-baked. It has some perfectly decent functionality, like networking, media and phone support, but then it also comes with rudimentary package management, a jumbled arsenal of programs, a desktop that is too difficult to manage and tame, plus identity crisis ... I struggled with the overall purpose, though. As impressive as the speed and lightness are, they are only small improvements over what Plasma offers. But then, Plasma is much easier to customize and tweak, it offers a coherent, consistent experience, and it feels modern and relevant. With Lubuntu, I had no connection, and using the distro felt like a chore. I had to fight the weird defaults to try to create an efficient setup, and I wasn't able to do achieve that. So I always go back to the question of investment versus benefit. Lubuntu feels too pricey for what it gives .. With Lubuntu, there needs to be more order, more consistency in how it works. At the moment, it's just a collection of ideas mashed together. While perfectly functional, it's not really fun. 6/10 ..."


title: Lubuntu

text: This release brought new artwork, including new wallpaper. It uses LXQt 0.14.1, based upon Qt 5.12.4.


title: Lubuntu

text: A review in the February 2020 issue of Full Circle magazine, concluded, "Lubuntu 19.10 builds well upon the success of 19.04. The developers seem to be fixing things at a good clip and polishing it up for the next key release, the first LXQt LTS version, due out on 23 April 2020. The 19.10 release is bug-free enough to have been an LTS release itself and this bodes really well for the expected quality of the upcoming LTS."


title: Lubuntu

text: This release is the first Lubuntu long term support release that uses LXQt and was released on 23 April 2020. Lubuntu 20.04.1 LTS was released on 6 August 2020.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 20.04 LTS used LXQt 0.14.1, based upon Qt 5.12.8 LTS. This release did not introduce many changes. It included a new software update notifier application. Called "Update Notifier", it was developed by Hans Möller. The release included new wallpaper artwork as a result of a community contest held for the release.


title: Lubuntu

text: In a 27 April 2020 review in "It's FOSS", Dimitrios Savvopoulos noted, "LXQt is not only for users with an older hardware but also for those who are seeking a simple and classic experience at their new machine." He added, "in daily use, Lubuntu 20.04 has proven to me completely trouble-free as every Ubuntu flavour in fact ... [the] Lubuntu team has successfully made the transition to a modern, still lightweight and minimal desktop environment. LXDE looks like [it has been] abandoned and it is a good thing to move away [from it] to an active project.


title: Lubuntu

text: A 29 May 2020 review in Full Circle magazine concluded, "Lubuntu 20.04 LTS completes the two-year development cycle, consisting of three standard releases leading to this LTS release. Overall this represents the culmination of a development project that commenced in 2014 to create a new Qt-based desktop for Lubuntu: LXQt. The process has taken much longer than was forecast six years ago, but was worth the wait. This first LTS release is stable, smooth, elegant, and a real joy to use. This is the best Lubuntu release so far."


title: Lubuntu

text: This standard release was made available on 22 October 2020. On 16 August 2018, the Lubuntu development team announced plans to port Openbox to Mir in time for Lubuntu 20.10 to allow Lubuntu to move away from the X display server to an implementation of Wayland instead.


title: Lubuntu

text: This release used LXQt 0.15.0, based on Qt 5.14.2. Improvements include adding a tree view to show pending updates in the Lubuntu update notifier and an updated plymouth theme, with the default wallpaper an alternate one from the 20.04 wallpaper competition.


title: Lubuntu

text: In a rundown on the Ubuntu flavors, "DeBugPoint" noted, "Lubuntu 20.10 based on Groovy Gorilla ... is perfect for low-end hardware and lightweight systems while being stable [due to being based upon] Ubuntu".


title: Lubuntu

text: A review published on Christmas Day 2020 in Full Circle magazine concluded, "Lubuntu 20.10 introduces very little that is new over 20.04 LTS. I actually think this is a good sign, as 20.04 LTS is a superb operating system and doesn’t really need much improvement. If this development cycle leads to the next Lubuntu LTS version having just a few minor improvements over 20.04, then, personally, I will be very happy with the results. An updated version of FeatherPad would be nice by then, however."


title: Lubuntu

text: This version introduced LXQt 0.16.0 based upon Qt 5.15.2. A new application, LXQt Archiver 0.3.0, based on Engrampa, was included. There was also a new version of the Lubuntu update notifier that includes a tree view with packages and versions for upgrade listed, plus new artwork.


title: Lubuntu

text: A review in Full Circle magazine stated, "this second standard release in the development cycle leading to the next LTS includes just small, cautious changes. This is really how operating system development should be approached, particularly when you have a loyal user base who are happy with how everything works and are generally not demanding big changes."


title: Lubuntu

text: This release uses the LXQt 0.17.0 desktop, based on Qt 5.15.2. Unlike Ubuntu 21.10, which moved to a snap package, Lubuntu retained the .deb package for the Firefox browser for this release.


title: Lubuntu

text: A Full Circle magazine review concluded, "Lubuntu 21.10 is a good, solid release without any bad points.


title: Lubuntu

text: Lubuntu 22.04 LTS is a long term support release, released on 21 April 2022 and will be supported for three years until April 2025.


title: Lubuntu

text: This releases employs the LXQt 0.17.0 desktop, based on Qt 5.15.3. It introduces the use of the Firefox web browser as a snap package, as the .deb package was removed from the Ubuntu repositories. Other changes include the deletion of the Trojitá email client, the K3B CD/DVD burning application and the fcitx input method framework.


title: Lubuntu

text: A review in "Debug Point" noted of this release, "overall, a perfect update of Lubuntu since the last LTS version, considering the latest LXQt desktop with the latest Qt support, new installer, Discover software manager and underlying applications."


title: Lubuntu

text: This release uses LXQt 1.1.0, which is based upon the Qt 5.15.6 toolkit. It also has the Calamares 3.3 Alpha 2 installer, Linux kernel 5.19 and new artwork.


title: Lubuntu

text: A review by Jeff Siegel in DistroWatch concluded that Lubuntu 22.10 is, "a top-notch and professional distro that doesn't get in the way. In this, I think Lubuntu has found a niche currently filled by Chromebooks, but for users who want more privacy and more control over their system -- and who don't want to pay for new hardware. Lubuntu is more nimble than a low-end Chromebook, less irritating to use, and installation bears no comparison to Google's Chrome OS brain whacking."


title: Lubuntu

text: Up to and including 18.04 LTS, Lubuntu also had access to the Ubuntu software repositories through the Lubuntu Software Center, the Synaptic package manager and APT allowing the installation of any applications available to Ubuntu.


title: Lubuntu

text: From 18.10, Lubuntu also has access to the Ubuntu software repositories through the Discover Software Center, the Synaptic package manager and APT allowing the installation of any applications available to Ubuntu.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: Thoroughly Modern Millie is a 1967 American musical-romantic comedy film directed by George Roy Hill and starring Julie Andrews. The screenplay, by Richard Morris based on the 1956 British musical "Chrysanthemum", follows a naïve young woman who finds herself in a series of madcap adventures when she sets her sights on marrying her wealthy boss. The film also stars Mary Tyler Moore, James Fox, John Gavin, Carol Channing, and Beatrice Lillie.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: The soundtrack interpolates new songs by Jimmy Van Heusen and Sammy Cahn ("Thoroughly Modern Millie", "The Tapioca"), and Jay Thompson ("Jimmy") with standard songs from the 1910s and 1920s, including "Baby Face" and "Jazz Baby". For use of the latter, the producers had to acquire the rights from General Mills, which had used the melody with various lyrics to promote Wheaties for more than 40 years.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: The film was nominated for seven Academy Awards and five Golden Globe Awards. It ranked eighth among high-grossing films of 1967. In 2000, it was adapted for a successful stage musical of the same name. A DVD was issued in 2003.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: In 1922 New York City, flapper Millie Dillmount is determined to find work as a stenographer to a wealthy businessman and then marry him – a "thoroughly modern" goal. Millie befriends the sweet yet naive Miss Dorothy Brown as the latter checks into the Priscilla Hotel. When house mother Mrs. Meers learns that Miss Dorothy is an orphan, she remarks, "Sad to be all alone in the world." Unbeknown to Millie, the woman is selling her tenants into sexual slavery, and those without family or close friends are her primary targets.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: At a Friendship Dance in the Dining Hall, Millie meets the devil-may-care paper clip salesman Jimmy Smith, to whom she takes an instant liking. However, she carries on with her plan to work for and then marry a rich man, and when she gets a job at Sincere Trust, she sets her sights on the attractive but self-absorbed Trevor Graydon. Jimmy later takes her and Miss Dorothy on an outing to Long Island, where they meet eccentric widow Muzzy Van Hossmere. Jimmy tells the girls that his father was Muzzy's former gardener. Millie begins to fall for Jimmy, but she sees him summon Miss Dorothy from her room for a late night rendezvous, and assumes the worst.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: Millie is even more determined to stick to her plan and marry Trevor. One morning, she goes to work dressed as a flapper and attempts to seduce him, but her effort fails. Eventually, Trevor sees Miss Dorothy and falls in love with her, and vice versa, leaving Millie heartbroken.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: Meanwhile, Jimmy's attempts to talk to Millie are continually thwarted by no-nonsense head stenographer Miss Flannary. He eventually climbs up the side of the building and when he finally gets to talk to Millie, she tells him that she is quitting her job since Mr. Graydon is no longer available.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: Mrs. Meers makes several attempts to kidnap Miss Dorothy and hand her over to her Chinese henchmen Bun Foo and Ching Ho, but Millie manages to interrupt her every time. When Mrs. Meers finally succeeds, Millie finds Trevor drowning his sorrows, and he tells her that Miss Dorothy stood him up and checked out of the hotel. Jimmy climbs into Miss Dorothy's room, lets Millie in, and they find all of Miss Dorothy's possessions still there. Millie realizes that Miss Dorothy is just one of several girls who have vanished without a word to anyone, except to Mrs. Meers. Together with Trevor Graydon, they try to piece the puzzle together. When Jimmy asks what all the missing girls had in common, Millie mentions that they were all orphans.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: Jimmy disguises himself as a woman named Mary James seeking accommodations at the Priscilla Hotel, and "casually" mentions to Mrs. Meers that she is an orphan. Mrs. Meers spots Trevor sitting in his car in front of the hotel, becomes suspicious, and shoots him with a tranquilizer dart. Mary James is subsequently captured by Mrs. Meers and her henchmen, and Millie follows them to Chinatown, where the unconscious Jimmy has been hidden in a room in a fireworks factory where Miss Dorothy is sleeping. Trying to look casual, Millie smokes a cigarette outside the building, and when she begins to choke on it, she tosses it into a window, setting off the fireworks. As a series of explosions tear through the building, Millie dashes into the factory and finds several white girls tied up, about to be sent off to Beijing. She unties a couple of them, who then free the other girls, and then bumps into Miss Dorothy. They carry Jimmy out of the building and head for Long Island and Muzzy.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: Mrs. Meers, Bun Foo, and Ching Ho follow Millie and the gang, but under Muzzy's leadership, everyone manages to subdue the nefarious trio. Millie then discovers that Jimmy and Miss Dorothy are actually millionaire siblings and that Muzzy is their stepmother who sent them out into the world to find partners who would love them for who they were and not for their money. Millie marries Jimmy, Miss Dorothy marries Trevor, and Muzzy marries one of her instructors.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: Hunter wanted to make a film of "The Boy Friend", which had been a hit on stage with Julie Andrews. Film rights cost too much - $400,000 - so Hunter decided to do "his own". He managed to get Andrews to agree to star.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: Although Pat Morita and Jack Soo each play Chinese henchmen, both were of Japanese descent; Morita was born in California, and Soo was born on a ship in the Pacific Ocean headed to the U.S. While he received no screen credit, Jimmy Bryant provided the singing voice for James Fox in this film.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: Elmer Bernstein composed the incidental score, for which he won his only Academy Award. The songs were arranged and conducted by André Previn.


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: The film earned $8.5 million in rentals in North America during 1967. At this time, Julie Andrews was the number one box office star in motion pictures. "Thoroughly Modern Millie" was her last film of the 1960s to make money. Her next two films, "Star!" (1968) and "Darling Lili" (1970), were colossal financial disasters. Andrews did not star in another hit film until 1974 when she co-starred with Omar Sharif in "The Tamarind Seed".


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: The film opened to good reviews and good box office. Bosley Crowther of "The New York Times" called the film "a thoroughly delightful movie," "a kidding satire, in a rollicking song-and-dance vein," "a joyously syncopated frolic," and "a romantic-melodramatic fable that makes clichés sparkle like jewels." He added, "Miss Andrews is absolutely darling – deliciously spirited and dry ... Having had previous experience at this sort of Jazz-age hyperbole in the British musical, "The Boy Friend" ... she knows how to hit the right expressions of maidenly surprise and dismay, the right taps in a flow of nimble dances, and the right notes in a flood of icky songs." He concluded "A few faults? Yes. There is an insertion of a Jewish wedding scene ... which is phony and gratuitous. There's a melodramatic mishmash towards the end, which has Mr. Fox dressing up like a girl and acting kittenish. That is tasteless and humorless. And the whole thing's too long. If they'll just cut out some of those needless things, all the faults will be corrected and it'll be a joy all the way."


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: "Variety" observed "The first half of "Thoroughly Modern Millie" (sic) is quite successful in striking and maintaining a gay spirit and pace. There are many recognizable and beguiling satirical recalls of the flapper age and some quite funny bits. Liberties taken with reality, not to mention period, in the first half are redeemed by wit and characterization. But the sudden thrusting of the hero ... into a skyscraper-climbing, flagpole-hanging acrobat, a la Harold Lloyd, has little of Lloyd but the myth. This sequence is forced all the way."


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: Charles Champlin of the "Los Angeles Times" wrote that the film was "at its best a fresh-as-paint, cute-as-bees-knees, just swell enchantment" with Andrews "altogether superb," though he found the dance numbers "strangely uninspired" and that the second half suffered from "a slapstick but singularly uncomical chase."


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: Leo Sullivan of "The Washington Post" wrote "Highly insignificant and deliberately old-fashioned, the film veers and comments in a broadly stylized way ... All [Ross Hunter] may have produced is a commercial movie but enhancing the entire film is his own personal enthusiasm. He seems to be saying this is the way it was and yipes, wasn't it delightful. It was and is."


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: "The Monthly Film Bulletin" wrote "An exploitative film in the sense that it exploits its stars' previous successes as much as their actual talents or the merits of its own script, it nonetheless manages, like the best camp, to make a merit of its defects and to turn the comic-caption corn of its dialogue into a positive attribute."


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: Roger Ebert gave the film a perfect four stars in his original review, a decision he later admitted in hindsight he was "no longer certain about."


title: Thoroughly Modern Millie

text: "TV Guide" rated the film three out of four stars and commented "Although it ultimately runs out of steam, this charming spoof of the 1920s is still one of the 1960s' better musicals ... Andrews is a comic delight, Moore is charming, and Channing steals scene after scene in this enjoyable feature." The film was one of four nostalgia-based movies that George Roy Hill made. After "Thoroughly Modern Millie", he made "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," "The Great Waldo Pepper," and the Oscar-winning hit "The Sting."


title: Red Hat Linux

text: Red Hat Linux was a widely used commercial open-source Linux distribution created by Red Hat until its discontinuation in 2004.


title: Red Hat Linux

text: Early releases of Red Hat Linux were called Red Hat Commercial Linux. Red Hat published the first non-beta release in May 1995. It was the first Linux distribution to use the RPM Package Manager as its packaging format, and over time has served as the starting point for several other distributions, such as Mandriva Linux and Yellow Dog Linux.


title: Red Hat Linux

text: In 2003, Red Hat discontinued the Red Hat Linux line in favor of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) for enterprise environments. Fedora Linux, developed by the community-supported Fedora Project and sponsored by Red Hat, is a free-of-cost alternative intended for home use. Red Hat Linux 9, the final release, hit its official end-of-life on April 30, 2004, although updates were published for it through 2006 by the Fedora Legacy project until the updates were discontinued in early 2007.


title: Red Hat Linux

text: Version 3.0.3 was one of the first Linux distributions to support ELF (Executable and Linkable Format) binaries instead of the older a.out format.


title: Red Hat Linux

text: Red Hat Linux introduced a graphical installer called Anaconda developed by Ketan Bagal, intended to be easy to use for novices, and which has since been adopted by some other Linux distributions. It also introduced a built-in tool called "Lokkit" for configuring the firewall capabilities.


title: Red Hat Linux

text: In version 6 Red Hat moved to glibc 2.1, egcs-1.2, and to the 2.2 kernel. It also introduced Kudzu, a software library for automatic discovery and configuration of hardware.


title: Red Hat Linux

text: Version 7 was released in preparation for the 2.4 kernel, although the first release still used the stable 2.2 kernel. Glibc was updated to version 2.1.92, which was a beta of the upcoming version 2.2 and Red Hat used a patched version of GCC from CVS that they called "2.96". The decision to ship an unstable GCC version was due to GCC 2.95's bad performance on non-i386 platforms, especially DEC Alpha. Newer GCCs had also improved support for the C++ standard, which caused much of the existing code not to compile.


title: Red Hat Linux

text: In particular, the use of a non-released version of GCC caused some criticism, e.g. from Linus Torvalds and the GCC Steering Committee; Red Hat was forced to defend their decision.


title: Red Hat Linux

text: GCC 2.96 failed to compile the Linux kernel, and some other software used in Red Hat, due to stricter checks. It also had an incompatible C++ ABI with other compilers. The distribution included a previous version of GCC for compiling the kernel, called "kgcc".


title: Red Hat Linux

text: As of Red Hat Linux 7.0, UTF-8 was enabled as the default character encoding for the system. This had little effect on English-speaking users, but enabled much easier internationalisation and seamless support for multiple languages, including ideographic, bi-directional and complex script languages along with European languages. However, this did cause some negative reactions among existing Western European users, whose legacy ISO-8859–based setups were broken by the change.


title: Red Hat Linux

text: Version 8.0 was also the second to include the Bluecurve desktop theme. It used a common theme for GNOME-2 and KDE 3.0.2 desktops, as well as OpenOffice-1.0. KDE members did not appreciate the change, claiming that it was not in the best interests of KDE.


title: Red Hat Linux

text: Version 9 supported the Native POSIX Thread Library, which was ported to the 2.4 series kernels by Red Hat.


title: Red Hat Linux

text: Red Hat Linux lacked many features due to possible copyright and patent problems. For example, MP3 support was disabled in both Rhythmbox and XMMS; instead, Red Hat recommended using Ogg Vorbis, which has no patents. MP3 support, however, could be installed afterwards, although royalties are required everywhere MP3 is patented. Support for Microsoft's NTFS file system was also missing, but could be freely installed as well.


title: Red Hat Linux

text: Red Hat Linux was originally developed exclusively inside Red Hat, with the only feedback from users coming through bug reports and contributions to the included software packages – not contributions to the distribution as such. This was changed in late 2003 when Red Hat Linux merged with the community-based Fedora Project. The new plan was to draw most of the codebase from Fedora Linux when creating new Red Hat Enterprise Linux distributions. Fedora Linux replaced the original Red Hat Linux download and retail version. The model is similar to the relationship between Netscape Communicator and Mozilla, or StarOffice and OpenOffice.org, although in this case the resulting commercial product is also fully free software.


title: Red Hat Linux

text: Release dates were drawn from announcements on "comp.os.linux.announce". Version names are chosen as to be cognitively related to the prior release, yet not related in the same way as the release before that.


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: The Declaration of Helsinki (DoH, , ) is a set of ethical principles regarding human experimentation developed originally in 1964 for the medical community by the World Medical Association (WMA). It is widely regarded as the cornerstone document on human research ethics.


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: It is not a legally binding instrument under the international law, but instead draws its authority from the degree to which it has been codified in, or influenced, national or regional legislation and regulations. Its role was described by a Brazilian forum in 2000 in these words: "Even though the Declaration of Helsinki is the responsibility of the World Medical Association, the document should be considered the property of all humanity."


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: The Declaration is morally binding on physicians, and that obligation overrides any national or local laws or regulations, if the Declaration provides for a higher standard of protection of humans than the latter. Investigators still have to abide by local legislation but will be held to the higher standard.


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: The fundamental principle is respect for the individual (Article 8), his or her right to self-determination and the right to make informed decisions (Articles 20, 21 and 22) regarding participation in research, both initially and during the course of the research. The investigator's duty is solely to the patient (Articles 2, 3 and 10) or volunteer (Articles 16, 18), and while there is always a need for research (Article 6), the participant's welfare must always take precedence over the interests of science and society (Article 5), and ethical considerations must always take precedence over laws and regulations (Article 9).


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: The recognition of the increased vulnerability of individuals and groups calls for special vigilance (Article 8). It is recognized that when the research participant is incompetent, physically or mentally incapable of giving consent, or is a minor (Articles 23, 24), then allowance should be considered for surrogate consent by an individual acting in the participant's best interest, although his or her consent should still be obtained if at all possible (Article 25).


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: Research should be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific background (Article 11), a careful assessment of risks and benefits (Articles 16, 17), have a reasonable likelihood of benefit to the population studied (Article 19) and be conducted by suitably trained investigators (Article 15) using approved protocols, subject to independent ethical review and oversight by a properly convened committee (Article 13). The protocol should address the ethical issues and indicate that it is in compliance with the Declaration (Article 14). Studies should be discontinued if the available information indicates that the original considerations are no longer satisfied (Article 17). Information regarding the study should be publicly available (Article 16). Ethical principles extend to publication of the results and consideration of any potential conflict of interest (Article 27). Experimental investigations should always be compared against the best methods, but under certain circumstances a placebo or no treatment group may be utilized (Article 29). The interests of the participant after the study is completed should be part of the overall ethical assessment, including assuring their access to the best proven care (Article 30). Wherever possible unproven methods should be tested in the context of research where there is reasonable belief of possible benefit (Article 32).


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: Investigators often find themselves in the position of having to follow several different codes or guidelines, and are therefore required to understand the differences between them. One of these is Good Clinical Practice (GCP), an international guide, while each country may also have local regulations such as the Common Rule in the US, in addition to the requirements of the FDA and Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) in that country. There are a number of available tools which compare these.


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: Other countries have guides with similar roles, such as the Tri-Council Policy Statement in Canada. Additional international guidelines include those of the CIOMS, Nuffield Council and UNESCO.


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: The Declaration was originally adopted in June 1964 in Helsinki, Finland, and has since undergone seven revisions (the most recent at the General Assembly in October 2013) and two clarifications, growing considerably in length from 11 paragraphs in 1964 to 37 in the 2013 version. The Declaration is an important document in the history of research ethics as it is the first significant effort of the medical community to regulate research itself, and forms the basis of most subsequent documents.


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: Prior to the 1947 Nuremberg Code there was no generally accepted code of conduct governing the ethical aspects of human research, although some countries, notably Germany and Russia, had national policies [3a]. The Declaration developed the ten principles first stated in the Nuremberg Code, and tied them to the Declaration of Geneva (1948), a statement of physicians' ethical duties. The Declaration more specifically addressed clinical research, reflecting changes in medical practice from the term 'Human Experimentation used in the Nuremberg Code. A notable change from the Nuremberg Code was a relaxation of the conditions of consent, which was 'absolutely essential' under Nuremberg. Now doctors were asked to obtain consent 'if at all possible' and research was allowed without consent where a proxy consent, such as a legal guardian, was available (Article II.1).


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: The 1975 revision was almost twice the length of the original. It clearly stated that "concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society." It also introduced the concept of oversight by an 'independent committee' (Article I.2) which became a system of Institutional Review Boards (IRB) in the US, and research ethics committees or ethical review boards in other countries. In the United States regulations governing IRBs came into effect in 1981 and are now encapsulated in the Common Rule. Informed consent was developed further, made more prescriptive and partly moved from 'Medical Research Combined with Professional Care' into the first section (Basic Principles), with the burden of proof for not requiring consent being placed on the investigator to justify to the committee. 'Legal guardian' was replaced with 'responsible relative'. The duty to the individual was given primacy over that to society (Article I.5), and concepts of publication ethics were introduced (Article I.8). Any experimental manoeuvre was to be compared to the best available care as a comparator (Article II.2), and access to such care was assured (Article I.3). The document was also made gender neutral.


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: Subsequent revisions between 1975 and 2000 were relatively minor, so the 1975 version was effectively that which governed research over a quarter of a century of relative stability.


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: The second revision (1983) included seeking the consent of minors where possible. The third revision (1989) dealt further with the function and structure of the independent committee. However, from 1993 onwards, the Declaration was not alone as a universal guide since CIOMS and the World Health Organization (WHO) had also developed their International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects.


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: The AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) Study 076 of 100 Zidovudine in maternal-infant transmission of HIV had been published in 1994. This was a placebo controlled trial which showed a reduction of nearly 70% in the risk of transmission, and Zidovudine became a "de facto" standard of care. The subsequent initiation of further placebo controlled trials carried out in developing countries and funded by the United States Centers for Disease Control or National Institutes of Health raised considerable concern when it was learned that patients in trials in the US had essentially unrestricted access to the drug, while those in developing countries did not. Justification was provided by a 1994 WHO group in Geneva which concluded "Placebo-controlled trials offer the best option for a rapid and scientifically valid assessment of alternative antiretroviral drug regimens to prevent transmission of HIV".


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: These trials appeared to be in direct conflict with recently published guidelines for international research by CIOMS, which stated "The ethical standards applied should be no less exacting than they would be in the case of research carried out in country", referring to the sponsoring or initiating country.


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: In fact a schism between ethical universalism and ethical pluralism was already apparent before the 1993 revision of the CIOMS guidelines.


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: In retrospect, this was one of the most significant revisions because it added the phrase "This does not exclude the use of inert placebo in studies where no proven diagnostic or therapeutic method exists" to Article II.3 ("In any medical study, every patient--including those of a control group, if any—should be assured of the best proven diagnostic and therapeutic method."). Critics claimed that the Zidovudine trials in developing countries were in breach of this because Zidovudine was now the best proven treatment and the placebo group should have been given it. This led to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ignoring this and all subsequent revisions.


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: Following the fourth revision in 1996 pressure began to build almost immediately for a more fundamental approach to revising the declaration. The later revision in 2000 would go on to require monitoring of scientific research on human subjects to assure ethical standards were being met. In 1997 Lurie and Wolfe published their seminal paper on HIV trials, raising awareness of a number of central issues. These included the claims that the continuing trials in developing countries were unethical, and pointing out a fundamental discrepancy in decisions to change the study design in Thailand but not Africa. The issue of the use of placebo in turn raised questions about the standard of care in developing counties and whether, as Marcia Angell wrote "Human subjects in any part of the world should be protected by an irreducible set of ethical standards" (1988). The American Medical Association put forward a proposed revision in November that year, and a proposed revision (17.C/Rev1/99) was circulated the following year, causing considerable debate and resulting in a number of symposia and conferences.


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: Recommendations included limiting the document to basic guiding principles. Many editorials and commentaries were published reflecting a variety of views including concerns that the Declaration was being weakened by a shift towards efficiency-based and utilitarian standards (Rothman, Michaels and Baum 2000), and an entire issue of the "Bulletin of Medical Ethics" was devoted to the debate. Others saw it as an example of Angell's 'Ethical Imperialism', an imposition of US needs on the developing world, and resisted any but the most minor changes, or even a partitioned document with firm principles and commentaries, as used by CIOMS. The idea of ethical imperialism was brought into high attention with HIV testing, as it was strongly debated from 1996 to 2000 because of its centrality to the issue of regimens to prevent its vertical transmission. Brennan summarises this by stating "The principles exemplified by the current Declaration of Helsinki represent a delicate compromise that we should modify only after careful deliberation". Nevertheless, what had started as a controversy over a specific series of trials and their designs in Sub-Saharan Africa, now had potential implications for all research. These implications further came into public view since the Helsinki declaration had stated, "In the treatment of the sick person, the physician must be free to use a new diagnostic and therapeutic measure, if in his or her judgement, it offers hope of saving life, reestablishing health or alleviating suffering."


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: Even though most meetings about the proposed revisions failed to achieve consensus, and many argued that the declaration should remain unchanged or only minimally altered, after extensive consultation the Workgroup


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: eventually came up with a text what that was endorsed by WMA's Council and passed by the General Assembly on October 7, 2000,


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: and which proved to be the most far reaching and contentious revision to date. The justification for this was partly to take account of expanded scope of biomedical research since 1975. This involved a restructuring of the document, including renumbering and re-ordering of all the articles, the changes in which are outlined in this Table. The Introduction establishes the rights of subjects and describes the inherent tension between the need for research to improve the common good, and the rights of the individual. The Basic Principles establish a guide for judging to what extent proposed research meets the expected ethical standards. The distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic research introduced in the original document, criticised by Levine was removed to emphasize the more general application of ethical principles, but the application of the principles to healthy volunteers is spelt out in Articles 18–9, and they are referred to in Article 8 ('those who will not benefit personally from the research') as being especially vulnerable. The scope of ethical review was increased to include human tissue and data (Article 1), the necessity to challenge accepted care was added (Article 6), as well as establishing the primacy of the ethical requirements over laws and regulations (Article 9).


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: Amongst the many changes was an increased emphasis on the need to benefit the communities in which research is undertaken, and to draw attention to the ethical problems of experimenting on those who would not benefit from the research, such as developing countries in which innovative medications would not be available. Article 19 first introduces the concept of social justice, and extends the scope from individuals to the community as a whole by stating that 'research is only justified if there is a reasonable likelihood that the populations in which the research is carried out stand to benefit from the results of the research'. This new role for the Declaration has been both denounced


title: Declaration of Helsinki

text: and even considered for a clarification footnote. Article 27 expanded the concept of publication ethics, adding the necessity to disclose conflict of interest (echoed in Articles 13 and 22), and to include publication bias amongst ethically problematic behavior.