Talk:Linux

Penguin as a mascot

Where did it come from? Why a penguin? Perhaps the article could also address this, as it does not mention it at the moment. Cheers. Pikolas (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

...remarkable. I'd always thought this article contained a small section on Tux. This is indeed an omission, and a small section on the mascot should be included. (The short answer is that Larry Ewing drew him after being inspired by a comment on LKML, and Linus likes penguins.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Linus-pronounces-linux.ogg

File:Linus-pronounces-linux.ogg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been proposed to be deleted as unused. I think it can be used here though, since the pronounciation of "linux" has been an issue to some people. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

POSIX time of 2^64 -1 equals 15:30:08 Sunday, 04 December 292,277,026,596 UTC?

Over at Talk:Unix time#Year 292.2C277.2C026.2C596 is illegal as fact for encyclopedia another editor has questioned the claim that at 15:30:08 UTC on Sunday, 04 December 292,277,026,596, 64-bit versions of the Unix time stamp will overflow the largest value that can be held in a signed 64-bit number. In particular, he is questioning the conversion from Signed 64-bit time_t = 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 (2⁶⁴-1) to the above date/time. Is there a Linux utility that will convert a POSIX time of 2⁶⁴-1 to the above date? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: minor syntax change

{{edit semi-protected}} I think that "This allows the user to adapt the operating system to his/her specific needs." should be changed to "This allows users to adapt the operating system to their specific needs." Xpapad 09:26, 07 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Very good suggestion, BTW. I hope to see you make many more contributions to Wikipedia in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge paragraph GNU/Linux into GNU paragraph

The name GNU/Linux is very important to the GNU Project, and free software users. I think that the issue should both be near the top of the article, and part of the GNU paragraph. Merging the paragraphs would solve both of those issues. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan 9001 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That would lend it undue weight. The naming dispute may be important within the realm of free software, particularly in terms of the perceived global impact of the GNU Project, but in terms of the overall impact of Linux on society it's little more than a footnote. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling GNU "little more than a footnote" I think is actually unfairly taking away too much credit from the GNU Project. As I've said before, the real problem is that we already have a Linux kernel article--this article is largely redundant information. The only thing added in this article in comparison to the Linux kernel article is additional misinformation and confusion. I believe it should either be removed completely or it's scope narrowed to GNU/Linux specifically. Alternately, if a broad article about the operating systems that use the Linux kernel is desirable, perhaps the article name should be changed appropriately. Zack Buhman 16:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhmanator (talk • contribs)

The GPL is not an "open source" license, as implied in the introduction.

In the opening sentence of paragraph 3, the wording "free and open source software" is used, and it is then later implied that the GNU GPL is a "free and open source" by using it as an example.

However, the GNU GPL is most certianly not an "open source" licence; and this fact has been made quite clear by the GPL's principal author, Mr. Richard Stallman in one of his articles http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

I propose that the sentence be changed to read "The development of Linux is one of the most prominent examples of free software collaboration: the underlying source code may be used, modified, and distributed—commercially or non-commercially—by anyone under licenses such as the GNU General Public License."

One might argue that because Linus Torvalds doesn't entirely agree with the FSF that it at least that portion might imply that the Kernel falls under the "open source" development category; while that might be somewhat justified, the GPL should not be in any way misrepresented as an "open source" license, because it, by definition, isn't.

This also makes the article less consistent. The other simultaneous mention of the GPL and "open source" licences occurs in the first paragraph of the development section, where the GPL is more appropriately introduced as a "free software" licence, specifically, "The most common free software license, the GNU GPL,..."

Additionally, the Kernel *is* GPL'ed, and I particularly don't like that "such as" wording; it implies that the Kernel may or may not be GPL'ed software. I also suggest that the sentence more accurately reflect free-software-specific freedoms, for the same reason.

I suggest, as a result, modifying my last proposal to then read "The development of Linux is one of the most prominent examples of free software development: the ability to use the Linux freely for any purpose, the free distribution of the unofuscated source code to allow users to study and modify the Linux, and the ability to freely redistributed both original and modified copies of Linux provided those copies don't attempt to remove these rights from the recipient--the GNU GPL provides the legal means to ensure all Linux users are allowed to enjoy these freedoms."

This also takes the unnessessary emphasis off that "commercially or non-commercially" wording, which is a not a focus of "open source" or free software licences, and made redundant by the "use Linux freely for any purpose" wording anyway.

Zack Buhman 16:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhmanator (talk • contribs)

Buhmanator, I think you should re-read your post. Also, from the very same page you linked:

Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.

Medende (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Medende has a valid point, while Stallman and the FSF prefer the "free software" wording and respective ideals, the GNU GPL is technically an open-source licence. --Jerebin (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Linux as a _family_ of operating systems

When I think Linux, I think of a wide family of operating systems comprising Ubuntu to Red-Hat, Minix to Tiny-core-linux, each of them having in common the same fundamental structure: the Linux kernel or, in case we refer to GNU/Linux, the Linux kernel accompanied by the GNU user base software.

Most major Wikipedias explain Linux as a family of OSes right in the leading paragraph: German, Italian, Portuguese, Greek and Dutch. You can read them with Google's Translate

I think the current status of this wiki doesn't reflect the real thing. As of revision 479268060, my proposed change is:

Linux (ⁱ/ˈlɪnəks/ LIN-əks or /ˈlɪnʊks/ LIN-uuks) is a family of Unix-like computer operating systems assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released October 5, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. The name Linux is often used to designate individual operating systems based on this kernel.

Medende (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick correction: Minix doesn't use Linux kernel. man with one red shoe 21:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

All of those are merely different distributions of the same Linux OS, not different operating systems. They've packaged Linux with different sets of applications, compilers, drivers and so on, configured differently for different hardware and different markets. But it's the same OS with the same system call interface and, except for the release, the same kernel. Msnicki (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The commonplace misunderstanding of an OS is a software package that can run and be utilized on a computer. Casual readers leave this page with a misunderstanding. This needs to be addressed. The idea stems from every mainstream distro referring to itself as an OS, and Microsoft plus Apple calls all their different OS versions OS, just for simplicity's sake. Plus the articles for Windows and OSX both describe them as series, not operating systems. --Nicholas Davidowicz (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)