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.
The article discusses the history of the term "GNU/Linux", but it doesn't provide any explaination for why "Linux" became the more common term in the first place. I've always wondered. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It is a good question, but I have never seen a real reference that explains that. I suspect the general media just adopted the term as it was a unique term, easy to remember and easy to pronounce. - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Because no one at the beginning called it GNU/Linux. Linus never did. FSF/GNU only started pushing the term later, when Hurd failed to deliver (iirc). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
"Linux" is Linus Torvalds's title for his own kernel. It caught on because it was the official title of the software. Elizium23 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
If by software you mean the operative system, please provide source that there is an "official" title. I would not even know how has an authoritative claim on making things "official" in regards Linux the operative system. Belorn (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I was curious as to why Linux became the conventional name for the operating system as a whole. (The observation that the kernel is named Linux because Linus chose that name is a no-brainer.) The article provides a number of arguments for and against the name, but it doesn't provide any history of how the synecdoche arose. To put it another way, I'm looking for how it happened, not a value judgement on whether it should've happened. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it just slipped into common use, in the same way "kleenex" slipped into common use as a term for "paper tissue". That is why there are no refs on how it happened, it was never documented, just happened. - Ahunt (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
After discussing this with friends, one should also really look into how magazines distributed around 1990-1997 wrote about this. Softlanding Linux System in 1992 which looks to be the earliest use of linux as the name of the operative system, but its hard to find a definitive date of when it was used first. Debian initially called it linux, but later changed it to gnu/linux around 1994. 1994, we can find this quote heated debate about what to call it, but there was no single point or event that caused it.Belorn (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I started using (GNU/)Linux in 1994, first Slackware and later Debian, and I remember it was simply called Linux. I still have some of my first 1994 InfoMagic "Linux Developer's Resource" CDs around with a "Debian 0.91 beta" on it, as well as e.g. an original Debian "potato" GNU/Linux 2.2 CD set from 2000. In the first days no one cared about how to call it. GNU was known as a set of utilities usable on a variety of systems (and I actually did use them myself apart from Linux), the distinctive part was the Linux kernel which made it usable standalone. It was natural to call it Linux. Everyone using Linux more or less had some knowledge about GNU, but you were more concerned with getting the software running than with naming or licensing issues. After all the system was new and, though more stable than any other PC operating system of its time, somewhat experimental. I remember the naming debate starting later on Debian mailing lists, when Linux became more popular and it turned out the role of the GNU project was underrepresented in the public reception of the system.--BerlinSight (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
PS: I just checked the original Debian README, dated 1994-04-15 from the June 1994 InfoMagic CD, it starts: "The current version of Debian Linux is 0.91 BETA."--BerlinSight (talk) 09:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The first announced version talked about in the debian-announce mailing list is called gnu/linux, and that's from from 1995. But what would really be good is to find the actually post that made the decision to change the name. Belorn (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I found a copy of the debian-announce mailing list on the CD. It contains a message dated 1994-05-01_06:36PDT from Ian Murdock with the original announcement of the name change. The subject was "A minor change..." ;-)--BerlinSight (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Read the "pro Gnu/Linux" section. EVERY pro claim is either Stallmann or his foundation (FSF).
The others are not even pro Gnu/Linux (e.g. kernel alone is not all. many parts are important.)
If noone refuses, I'll trim this to something like "The FSF and his president Richard Stallmann argue for this naming, because of their perceived importance of their software products" --RicardAnufriev (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
First of all, please do not make big edits whose diffs cannot be understood quickly.
Actually some of the paragraphs in both sections are not arguments for particular naming. I think some of the paragraphs need to be put near each other, as they are talking about the same thing (like whether naming matters, or someone's accusation of RMS and his response to it).
In the "pro Linux" section, every pro claim is "it's a lost cause, most people call it Linux and the controversy will get us nowhere". What will be left of this article if we replace the section with something like that? --AVRS (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not really Wikipedia's place to judge whether the arguments made are good or bad ones, merely to summarize the facts and the commentary by notable sources. Although you can find many instances of people arguing for "GNU/Linux" online, the most prominent reputable source (and probably the clearest descriptions of the "pro" arguments) for us to cite is the FSF web pages. Nor is it equitable to summarize an argument on one side without mentioning specific counter-arguments from the other side (if they can be reputably sourced to a prominent commentator).
Regarding organization, a long time ago I seem to recall that this article was organized more in a "point-counterpoint" fashion where one listed a comment on one side and then the answer by RMS etcetera, but this ended up being problematic as an organizing strategy. For one thing, it made it seem like a transcript of a debate, when in fact the comments were made at very different points of time rather than in a direct conversation. For another thing, it was hard to be neutral about which voice was given the last word on each argument. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I seem to remember a quote by Stallman arguing that the GNU/Linux term should be used because the POSIX standard defines an operating system to be a certain set of software (shell, coreutils, kernel, etc) and Linux by itself does not meet that requirement. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
If you have a reference, it can be considered for inclusion. See WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I see no mention of pragmatic reasons for supporting Linux.
"Linux" is just so much easier and cleaner than writing it as "GNU/Linux" and pronouncing as "GNU slash Linux", regardless of who is the primary contributor. Perhaps if FSF had come up with a different name (perhaps combining GNU and Linux into a single word), it may have gained more acceptance. This is something that came to my mind personally and obviously I can't put this in the article. But I'm sure I'm not the only one who has thought of this. Is there any reference or article out there which mentions something similar? This is the first thing that comes to my mind when hearing about this controversy and I'm sure this is quite relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldKanga (talk • contribs) 06:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)