This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I would like an uninvolved editor to arbitrate an edit dispute on the article at this time. I've come to the conclusion an involved editor has no basis for his opinion other than that I'm slighting published sources by referring to historically accurate terminology as well as the definitions for terms that current standards bodies use. I don't think policy is the issue, I think the fact that it suits someone's opinion is. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The fact that reliable sources and policy both support keeping the previous version should tell you something...on Wikipedia that's how things are decided, trying to recharacterize it as a "clash of opinions" does nothing more than to highlight the fact that you have no basis for your changes and are grasping at straws to push your POV. However, I've asked for a third-opinion at WP:3O to hopefully settle this. - Aoidh (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
You made a request on Wikipedia:Third opinion for a fresh pair of eyes, so here I am. I'm not going to “make a decision” for you as 184.108.40.206 suggested; that's not the point of a WP:3O. All I can do is state my opinion; you will still have to decide yourselves.
Your controversy is kind of tricky because, in a way, you are trying to resolve the very issue the page is about. That said, the wording proposed by 220.127.116.11 (“software distribution”) seems to me to be much more geared towards one viewpoint than the wording previously used (“operating system”). It is true that there are conflicting definitions of the term “operating system”, and I have heard it used synonymously to “kernel”. From my subjective experience, however, it is generally considered to include the parts of the system which the kernel relies on to be able to run. For example, when referring to Windows as an “operating system”, this includes all the userspace components which are shipped together with the kernel (see Operating system—this is much more than the equivalent of GNU). Additionally, it is less accurate because the term “distribution” has a special meaning in the Free Software context, and it is not the distribution (as in, Fedora (operating system)) which is called “Linux”, but the software which is distributed.
Therefore, I would suggest that you keep the previous version of the page. The proper use of the term “operating system” may be controversial; however, as far as it is not immediately related to the GNU/Linux controversy, it is probably out of scope of this article.
I am a frequent volunteer at Third Opinion. I have requested a sockpuppet investigation in regard to the 3O given above, for the reasons stated on the SPI page. I would suggest that the editors in this dispute not rely upon it until that SPI has been resolved. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The investigation has cleared both Yokokokon and Aoidh, for which I am glad. My apologies for the interruption and to both of them for my suspicions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The addition of the failed verification tag was reverted with the edit summary "the plain English meaning of "created" is equivalent to "created from scratch" ... when the Bible says "God created the Heavens and the Earth" it does not imply that God was probably just adding the last few mountain ranges". That is, however, untrue. The plain English meaning of created is not equivalent to "created from scratch", that is self evident in the wording (hence the "from scratch" disambiguation of what kind of creating) and in the dictionaries I consulted; none of them support the idea that to create something, it must be done "from scratch". That a source verifies that Torvalds created something does not verify the claim that he created it from scratch. References to the Biblical creation are irrelevant; the source given does not verify the text in the article, and implying a conclusion the source does not state is WP:OR. I've tried to reword it to make it at least closer to what the source stated, but if there's a disagreement about it I'd rather discuss it on the talk page than via edit summaries. - Aoidh (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
No matter your stance on the controversy, you have to admit that "Linux" is far more ambiguous. In the quote from Linus we see him say "Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux", where "Linux" refers to the same thing as GNU/Linux - the OS. The redundancy is more clear with the other terminology: "a GNU distribution of GNU/Linux". Regardless of why one may think he said this, I propose a small modification: "a GNU distribution of Linux [sic]" Paradox (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it is quite clear without that, and, in fact adding "sic" indicates that the statement is unclear or contains an error, when it doesn't. - Ahunt (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how that quote is confusing at all, especially given that "distribution of Linux" is very clearly a specific thing, not an ambiguous term that could refer solely to the kernel. Adding sic implies that there's something inaccurate in the comment, and there isn't, so there's no reason to add that to the quote. - Aoidh (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
These graphics were made by User:ScotXW and added my him to the article. I removed them because the article subject is GNU/Linux naming controversy and these graphics are not relevant to the article. He reverted my removal of it, so I am bringing it here for discussion. Does anyone think these belong here? - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
As with many of the images the editor has created and added to irrelevant articles, these images might be useful for an article, but this one isn't it. - Aoidh (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose both images as largely off-topic. And I agree with Aoidh that they would be useful in other technical articles. Elizium23 (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, there's little to no reason for these images to be used in this article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)