Template talk:Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linux (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2013[edit]

Please add a link to Seccomp to the "Security Modules" section, because seccomp is a security module that is used in real-world software (see article) but not yet referenced very often on Wikipedia (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Seccomp). (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Ahunt (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Too big[edit]

Does anyone else think this navbox is getting just too big to be useful? - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Linux is getting bigger, thus more space is required. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
True, but I think this box is trying to be too many things. It is now enormous and bigger than many of the articles that it is on! It is also still missing a lot of Linux-related topics and if they are added it will be a lot bigger yet! I am just thinking that in its present size it is not very useful to readers. Have a look at what it looked like six years ago. Yes it was smaller, but arguably more useful. I am going to suggest here that it should be cut down to key topics only and send people to Category:Linux for the exhaustive list. Thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
A lot of vertical space could be easily saved, by merging together:
  • "Documentation", "Developers" and "Users" sections
  • "Main line", "HPC", "HPC" and "MMU-less" sections
  • "Hypervisor", "OS-level virtualization" and "Other" sections
Also, "Malware" section is pretty much pointless, if you agree. With those few simple changes, it would be cut to almost half of its current size. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like a good start! You have hit the real issue here, which is mostly the amount of vertical space it takes up. Why don't you go ahead and make those changes and then let's see how it looks when done? - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Done, please check it out. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
It is a definite improvement! I still think we could remove a lot of the minor or peripheral topics and leave them for categories instead of a nav box. Basically I don't see a need to list every article with a connection to Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, it's better now, but still can be improved further. :) How about deleting "Media" and "People" sections, for the beginning? I don't see why we need those in this navbox. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually I thought those would be of more interest to the general reader. I thought a lot of the specific packages would be better to cut. - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
That clearly confirms I'm not representing the thoughts of a general reader. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────... and more and more links keep getting added, making this template ever bigger and bigger! - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure whether that's a good or a bad thing, the fact this template keeps growing... On one side, it does become less readable that way, but—on the other hand—there are many Linux-related articles, and how should we decide which of them to expunge? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
If nothing else I think it has to be no bigger than is useful to a casual reader and this exceeded that a log time ago. It is now very confusing and daunting for a reader to look through. We have probably hundreds more articles with a connection to Linux and we can't add them all here. I would suggest we cut it down to a few core topics and let Category:Linux handle the rest. Have a look at Template:Linux distributions to see one way of handling what could be a huge list template. - Ahunt (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Hm, that makes sense, Template:Linux distributions is a very good example. What do you propose to be left in the Linux template – let's start from there, if you agree, and I'm sure we'll make it reasonably sized while providing good coverage? Also, in my opinion, we shouldn't let the Category:Linux handle everything, we should also include a few more categories like Category:Linux kernel features etc. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense to have some sub-categories! I would support that!
I think the nav box should just include the people and media sections (but not the redlinks) and then just the history, kernel, list of distros, adoption, adopters and a few key misc topics like GNU/Linux naming controversy and links to the category. Let me see if I can create a model here on the talk page. - Ahunt (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you like the inclusion of more (sub)categories. :) Though, I'm just a bit confused about why do we need links to people and media? Why don't we use a category for that too (new category can be always created, if needed)? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
We can cut them if you like, I just think they are more likely to be of interest to a general reader. - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I would start with separating Linux family of operating systems and the Linux kernel. I would prefer a clean separation, e.g. please note, that most of the people work only on the Linux kernel... User:ScotXWt@lk 10:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


Okay here is one much smaller model:

- Ahunt (talk) 22:06, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Wow, it's so tiny – guess I need to wrap my head around such a compact version, after spending so much time with the gigantic version of this template. :) I'll come back with a detailed feedback, but I still find it better to delete the people and media rows, and possibly include some other links instead. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure, feel free to produce your own version here and let's see what we can come up with. - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way, have you seen the {{Hamlet}} navbox? How awkward is that one to an average reader? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Well I agree that one is a bit big and cumbersome as well, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to move this discussion forward and perhaps address some earlier concerns I propose splitting off the Linux media section, as it is a bit peripheral, but keeping the "people" section, like this:
Let me know what you think of that concept. - Ahunt (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for the delay, I was a bit distracted from this discussion. Looking at your proposal for splitting media-related article links into another navbox, I'd say it would be better to keep them together. In other words, on second thought your earlier proposal looks good to me, slightly expanded with one more category at the bottom and "more..." link in "Linux kernel" section, as visible below:
Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That looks good to me. Let's leave it a few days and see if anyone else has any objections! - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Totally agreed, thanks. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
There is one recent and big contributer to the template, User:ScotXW, whom I thought would have had something to say about our discussions here. To make sure he isn't left out, I have invited his thoughts on our proposals here. - Ahunt (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation, but as I already mentioned in several edit summaries, we should split {{Linux kernel}} from {{Linux}} and try to not produce garbage similar to the article Linux in its current form. Please note, that most of the well-known people work exclusively on the Linux kernel and contribute nothing to user-space. A couple of well-known people who work on user-space have their own article, though Ulrich Drepper's article was deleted (probably by somebody whom he pissed off, WP is clearly governed by cool headed professionals...). Maybe {{Linux layers}} could be of service in producing the Navbar for the Family of Linux kernel-based operating systems. User:ScotXWt@lk 10:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for participating! It does sound a like a good idea to me to split out some of the kernel stuff into a new template. From that perspective it may make best sense to carry out this proposal above to reduce this template and then use whatever links are needed to create a new one for more technical kernel-related items.
As far as Ulrich Drepper's article goes I wasn't part of that AfD, but the record shows that the article lacked any third party refs. I am sure if they can be found that it could be re-started. - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree there, creating new {{Linux kernel}} navbox can be only a good thing, and it can contain some of the links we're proposing to remove from the {{Linux}} navbox. On the other hand, deleting everything that's related to the Linux kernel from {{Linux}} navbox wouldn't make much sense to me.
It's a very good remark that we need to pay attention about which people are working on the Linux kernel, and which are working on the userspace; I'd say we should revisit the list of people once we've created the {{Linux kernel}} navbox – if you agree.
By the way, I don't understand why Linux article is bad in its current form? It provides a high-level overview of Linux as an operating system, it's not supposed to be about how to write your device driver and such stuff (neither Linux kernel article is supposed to do that). — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay I suggest we wait a few more days for additional input and unless there are further objections we will go with the last proposed box for this template and a new box can be created for kernel components. That works for me! - Ahunt (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Totally agreed. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd say it's been cooking for long enough, so went ahead and edited the navbox. Please check it out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for moving that forward, there have been no objections, so it was probably time to do so today. I checked it and it look fine! - Ahunt (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thank you for starting the size reduction of this navbox! I'll keep thinking about {{Linux kernel}} navbox, and will invite you and ScotXW for comments once I have something ready. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
That would be great if you take the lead on that nav box. I don't have a good idea what should be included, but I'll help edit if you get it going. - Ahunt (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I am curious why the LAMP (software bundle) was deleted from the template, while Linux_desktop_environments was kept, though it is now merely a redirect. User:ScotXWt@lk 12:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Lamp and those other software bundles no longer belong in this template as they are not adoption stories. The idea was to reduce this template and not let it explode to a huge size once again. I don't think anyone realized that Linux desktop environments was now just a redirect. I will remove it, too. - Ahunt (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Please have a look at {{Linux kernel}} – ScotXW already created another monster navbox. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
At the same time, I'd restore the link to Linux desktop environments, as it's just unreasonable not to list desktop within the adoption section. Linux desktop environments used to be a separate article, and it has been merged into Linux article at some point in time, please see Talk:Linux desktop environments and associated discussion for more details. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
If you think it is needed, then please do restore it! - Ahunt (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, now it's back. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Since the "adoption story"-articles exist, I'd like to have them in the NAVBOX. Instead of LAMP/LYME we could link to Linux for servers instead, but such an article doesn't exist. Thus we have to link to LAMP and such.LAMP is not only a well-known thing, but also it is still very successful. Now wouldn't you want a link to that article? User:ScotXWt@lk 09:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
We cut back links to hundreds of well-known things because the nav box was far too big. I really think LAMP, etc belong in another nav box elsewhere, perhaps a new Linux server nav box? - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
How about creating and populating a suitable new category that we could include instead? If we'd include LAMP, then we should also include other stuff and the navbox would just slowly go back to its previous shape; including a category instead should be a reasonable compromise, if you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I would support that idea! - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see enough material for an extra navbox. Also, LAMP is a very well-known term and continues to be very successful; many people might not even be aware, that in fact they are using some kind of LAMP-"stack". I don't see a way around having in in the Linux navbox. Anyway, I think wikipedia would profit from a "good" article about the employment of Linux on servers. User:ScotXWt@lk 20:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


What's with those irrelevant women?

Pamela Jones; a creator of a... website? Allison Randal; project administrator, and, okay, creator, but of a project with no direct relevance to Linux. Karen Sandler; project administrator.

Are you seriously implying those are significant enough for *this* infobox? This is about Linux, the system/kernel! Even forgetting the fact that if all men of comparable significance were included, the list would be hundreds of names wrong, this infobox should clearly be about prime kernel developers, leaders of projects DIRECTLY about Linux, creators/maintainers of MAJOR distributions.

Stop stuffing females everywhere, feminists, you're only discrediting yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It could be helpful for interested people to do a neutral review of the articles in this "people" list and come up with a set of criteria for it (including looking for similar lists in other templates and finding out if they've developed any criteria to borrow from), to help make the list fair and useful and make sure it's not omitting anyone who should be there. But insulting editors and insultingly minimizing the work of article subjects is the wrong way to go about suggesting a review, and considering leadership and media contributions off-topic for this template would mean that there are also some off-topic articles listed in the "Controversies", "Organizations", and "Media" sections. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)