|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GoboLinux article.|
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Linux||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Looks an awful lot like the OS X layout... Not that there's anything wrong with that!
- It's actually a lot different. The OS X structure is just the standard BSD structure, invisible in the Finder, with things like "Applications" and "Library" tacked on. OS X still has /etc and /var and /usr and all that. Gobo is much, much more elegant. Directory names serve a purpose, and it's basically self-documenting. I warmly recommend taking at least a look at GoboLinux. It is both conceptually beautiful and usable, not unlike Ruby. (I'm not a Gobo dev, and I'm actually an OS X user. I just really like GoboLinux.) -- Kristleifur 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Apple structure is different as far as I know. Default what a user views on mac is "Applications, Library, Network, System, Users, Volumes" But you dont have these dirs on gobo (gobo has /Depot /Files /Mount /Programs /System ... the last two are the most important. /Depot can be removed easily. /Mount is similar to /mnt and /Files is hardly used and IMHO could also go away ;-) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 20 April 2008
Hi there, I'm Hisham Muhammad from the GoboLinux project. Please don't put my name on the "Company/developer" field in the infobox, as I'm not the only developer of the distro and I should not take full credit. I had it removed once but someone (logged by IP only) put it back. Thanks. --LodeRunner 05:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
What type of Linux??
I can (and will) go to the GoboLinux website to find this out, but should it not be stated in the
and in the introduction that GoboLinux is based on... debian|knoppix|gentoo|red hat ???
- GoboLinux is not based on any other Linux distro. The original build was based on the Linux from Scratch instructions, but that is a manual to build a Linux distro, and not a distro by itself. -- LodeRunner (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any experience dealing with notability of articles. Nor do I have any special interest in Gobolinux -- but to claim it's not notable is a joke. It's not just another debian clone, but a novel linux concept and leads the field. I'm strongly for it staying on wikipedia, and the notability notice removed. (Erikina (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)).
- Novelty isn't the same as notability. It needs some sources which establish that it's high-profile enough to warrant maintenance on the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable
[I am taking `presumed` as an important, non-random term here]
It does in fact receive independent coverage from secondary sources which are independent of the subject - therefore it is notable by that guideline. Secondly, it is distinctive in several areas from the more common *nix distributions; therefore it is `notable` by the common meaning of notable. While novelty does not guarantee notability, it is inaccurate to suggest that uniqueness is irrelevant in this matter: several elements of a set can be addressed en mass, where as unique elements warrent special treatment.
The one issue raised to support `not notable` is erroneous: `high-profile` is NOT a condition of notability - officially or otherwise. From the official page on notability:
Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"
As an example, there are flowers listed in encyclopedias, yet they aren't covered in the nightly news. E! television specializes in `high-profile` personalities, yet rarely covers Einstein (he's famous and has posters) nor Fermi (not famous, not so many posters) yet both personalities are appropriate subject material for an encyclopedia.
I removed the notability notice:
- there is an official case for it's notability (`presumed notable` upon coverage)
- there is a general case in that this distribution is in fact notable in the non-wikipedian sence (upon which the wikipedian notion is derived)
- there is no significant, valid case against
In light of the facts, it is unreasonable to conclude that this article is un-notable. This article adds depth to the linux coverage: the combination of similarity and uniqueness sheds light on areas of *nix not covered, or only awkwardly covered elsewhere - as is common in non-fictional material, comparison and contrast of similar and unique elements elucidates the whole. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting this article, nor by merging.
So who of you admin-like guys labeled this page as advertisement please? Can whoever do this EXACTLY point out which words are annoying him? You already saw Hisham above commenting to give credit to the other guys as well and not him alone, and he isn't even writing anything in the page as such because this could be seen as being biased and subjective. Well I am biased for sure. I think Goboliux is great and very different from the other Distributions that stick to the FHS, and a unneeded flag that claims this content is "advertisement" is truly ridiculous. What the heck exactly is advertisement in it? 188.8.131.52 (talk)
- Nevermind. I just removed the advertisement clause. If one of you other guys adds the advertisement clause back in PLEASE AT LEAST STATE WHAT EXACTLY IS ADVERTISEMENT THEREIN. Thanks. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
It would be great to see a section about reception (numbers of user adoption, general feedback) and criticism. I have read a lot (on forums) about deep flaws in GoboLinux as a concept that are not mentioned here at all. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)