Talk:Linux

Wikilink GNU/Linux naming controversy in into

Hi. I would like to make the miniscule edit to the intro to make "GNU/Linux" (or 'alternate term "GNU/Linux"') a wikilink to GNU/Linux naming controversy. This should be completely non-controversial, but when I did it, it was reverted. That sentence is about naming, and it's about the name "GNU/Linux", so linking to Wikipedia's article on that topic just makes sense.

That's the only change I'm proposing - just a link, no changes to the text of the intro. When I was reverted, I was told "see talk", but I don't see anything here saying that that piece of text shouldn't be linked to that article. Please explain here if I've missed something. Thanks, and sorry about the drama over nothing. --Gronky 12:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I support this link, I think it makes sense. -- AdrianTM 12:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that there's a naming line in the intro, it could be tacked on there, but the link should be as clear and neutral as possible. There's a recurring pattern where links to things like GNU/Linux naming controversy, GNU variants and alternative terms for free software (which are essentially all storms brewed up by the FSF) seem to turn up all over the place without clear signposting as to what they are.

I'd also make the point that this clearly isn't an edit without a history, checking the page logs, so it's a tad disingenuous to suggest that it's completely innocuous. Chris Cunningham 12:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get into accusations. Everyone is well aware of the meg of text that have been typed about the intro to this article. --Gronky 13:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The GNU/Linux link again

Actually, now might be a good time to bring this back up.

Over the last couple of weeks, I've systematically tidied general references to "Linux" in articles to wikilink directly to Linux for the sake of consistency. As for Sep 20, no articles on the article namespace link to "GNU/Linux". As such, it's free to be repurposed, by moving the controversy article directly to "GNU/Linux".

This does two things:

1. Keeps Wikipedia consistent (because there'll be a clear distinction between the terms);
2. Avoids a contrived name for the article. A personal observation is that articles with the word "controversy" in them never seem to get, well, particularly good.

Just a suggestion, but thought I'd bring it up (what with having hand-tidied over two hundred articles to make it so). Chris Cunningham 15:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Daniel11 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes sense, people who are interested in "Linux" usually want to read this article because that's the general use of the term as it was repeated over and over again in this page, while people interested in "GNU/Linux" term most likely want to read an explanation of the name in a sense of "what the heck is that GNU/ " or, "which name should I use GNU/Linux or Linux?" and less likely to want to read this article because the use of the term simply is not there. BTW, GNU/Linux proponents might support this because they probably prefer people to read the "controversy" article rather then be just redirected to this boring article.

Personally. I still think that Linux should redirect to a Linux distribution article because there's no such thing as a generic "Linux", I think that "Linux" is a merely a short way to say "Linux distribution" or "OS with Linux kernel" which to me are almost synonymous, the only thing that would be kind of left outside of such an article would be the self-build OS that's not a "distribution" per se -- but how many people build their OS by taking Linux kernel and adding other components manually, I think that ever LFS is considered in a large sense a "distribution") -- AdrianTM 03:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing of course is that "Linux" does not really name just one thing. It names several things. It's a word that programmers use when they mean the kernel, and a word that end-users use when they mean a product such as Ubuntu Linux or Debian GNU/Linux.

Sometimes we use disambiguation pages to deal with that sort of situation. However, in this case there's enough to say about the history of the general vague uncertain idea of Linux that it merits having this article as well as the others. --FOo 03:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Linux" would redirect to "Linux distribution" since that's the most common usage, and in "Linux distribution" there should be a dab link to Linux kernel article. "Linux distribution" would change a little bit the focus to include stuff from here, most of the stuff in this page can be very well used there. Alternatively, Linux could be a dab page which would offer "Linux (kernel)" and "Linux distribution" as options, of course in articles the links should link directly to the desired page. Also, we need to be careful about one issue, Linux is a trademark by using it as generic term we don't take that into considration and we actually weaken the trademark -- as a trademark it clearly refers to Linux kernel and can be used by distributions that use Linux kernel and get permission to use the term from LMI, there's no such thing as general vague uncertain idea of Linux -- AdrianTM 04:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Beware of essentialism. One shouldn't take it for granted that the trademark is the One True meaning of "Linux". After all, the word was used before there was even a thought of it being a trademark. Linus never applied for a trademark; he simply received it when it was taken away from a scammer. In any event, we aren't making a product and calling it Linux; we're writing encyclopedia articles about the various things that people call "Linux".

It seems to me a disambiguation page would indeed be a useful thing, but that having an article about the general phenomenon of Linux is more useful. --FOo 04:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said, I just wonder if there's a separated "phenomenon of Linux" outside of the Linux kernel and Linux distributions scope, and how much in this article belongs to either of the two issues. -- AdrianTM 05:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting because we're getting off track) There's previously been no consensus to move to Linux distribution and it's contrived anyway. One does not see many calls to move Microsoft Windows to Microsoft Windows family just because it's a large number of disparate products.

Could we get some consensus on whether redirecting GNU/Linux is a good idea or not? Chris Cunningham 07:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not. GNU/Linux is an operating system, not a naming controversy. --Gronky 10:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

One does not see many calls to move Microsoft Windows to MS-DOS just because MS-DOS is used as a kernel/loader for Microsoft Windows, either.

I agree with Gronky that GNU/Linux is an OS, not a naming controversy. --AVRS 11:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

GNU/Linux is a POV, mostly a POV of RMS and adepts about what Linux "should" be called. Don't confuse a POV with reality. -- AdrianTM 11:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, it's also used by one of the oldest, largest, and most prolific (that is, widely imitated and spun-off) Linux distributions: Debian. --FOo 08:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, because GNU/Trolls won that fight, if you look at the initial Debian announcement you won't see any trace of "GNU" http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.development/msg/a32d4e2ef3bcdcc6?output=gplain -- AdrianTM 09:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that comment stands for itself as to the quality of your contribution to this effort. --FOo 07:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the name of the OS in Wikipedia should be GNU/Linux, with Linux being a disambiguation, and the kernel being described in Linux (kernel). The fact that Wikipedia uses the term 'Linux' rather than 'GNU/Linux' is enough for me to avoid as much as possible citing Wikipedia's 'Linux' articles in any kind of publication, as a failure to properly represent the history of GNU/Linux means that a source is neither neutral, nor authoritative, and I am doing this to protect the readers. Usually the term 'Linux' to describe the GNU/Linux operating system is used by either newbies or people who don't like the FSF, GNU, or RMS. Whether it is the most prevalent term it does not matter. Would you call photocopying 'xeroxing' if the term were really more popular today? Wikipedia is an educational resource and as such it should attempt to use what is historically correct and avoid to add to the misinformation of the public by continuing erronous naming conventions. GNU came before the Linux kernel, most early GNU/Linux distributions, like Debian GNU/Linux or Yggdrasil Linux/GNU/X, specifically included GNU in their name, and all GNU/Linux distributions today contain much more GNU code than Linux code, and Linux would be unusable for the average user without GNU as GNU provides such packages as bash, emacs, gnome, grub, and others, including the very important libc. GNU and Linux were distinct communities and it was only through historical accident and the fact that they both used the GPL that their code was later combined to form a full OS. Calling that combined code simply Linux is a diservice to the GNU community, where most of the code originates from, and is not neutral as it emphasises the Linux community over the GNU community. FSF clearly explains in their FAQ the political agendas behind the people who call the OS simply Linux. Richard M. Stallman (RMS) has also written some insightful essays on the subject ([1], [2], [3]). As RMS explains, the GNU project aims to create a complete free OS, not just a bunch of software packages. The Linux community seeks to crate a kernel, but it can only be used as part of an OS, and GNU is such an OS, therefore systems like Debian, Ututo, gNewSense, and others are more appropriately named GNU/Linux. There are also technical problems with the term Linux describing the full OS, because as RMS explains people outside the technical fields cannot distinguish between the kernel and the OS (I have a BSc with Hons in Computer Science and I agree). There are much more that could be said but now I have no more time to spend on this issue. Full disclosure: I am an FSF Contributing Member listed in ThankGNUs 2007 (I have also donated to Wikimedia of course). NerdyNSK 22:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that when Linux started off, th GNU project was already working on its own kernel, Hurd (which continues, as well as the Hurd/L4 project, and you can try loading with Debian GNU/Hurd to see how a GNU system without Linux looks like... the average user takes no notice, as Linux is only a small part of most GNU/Linux distros). Imagine this situation: I develop an OS and a kernel, and then you come and remove my kernel and replace it with yours. Would it be acceptable to call the whole OS by your kernel's name? Of course not! NerdyNSK 22:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if I run KDE on top of FreeBSD many users of Linux/GNU/X/KDE (which in my opinion is the complete and correct name) won't notice the difference either, however "not noticing the difference" is not encyclopedic stuff. -- AdrianTM 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not how Wikipedia works. Even if GNU/Linux is the right name for the OS, Wikipedia naming conventions say to call it Linux if most people call it Linux. The Burma discussion page had a long-running discussion on this point. 209.204.189.199 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

New Kernel

The new kernel version of Ubuntu, Gutsy is coming out in a few weeks. That will need updated. I already downloaded it and have it installed. Complex-Algorithm 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fubar Obfusco (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is the new kernel for all Linux versions, and released on October 9. Ubuntu calls the version Gutsy when it applies to its OS. It appears that this has just been updated.  Involuntary_instance  talk  22:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not correct. Ubuntu's next distribution is named Gutsy Gibbon but this has nothing to do with the Linux kernel. --Yamla 23:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of linux

Just did a search on criticisms of linux, and nothing really relevant came up. Is this really the case, or could this be Systemic Bias sneaking in? Granted, I'm certainly not expecting even a fraction of the criticisms found in the Microsoft EcoSystem, but I found it strange not even a paragraph was linked from that search. Search prompted after doing [Google search] 81.149.182.210 23:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

See the archives. If there were valid, sourced criticisms they'd be added. Chris Cunningham 12:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another point from talk archives: an operating system is not an opera or movie to need a "criticism and praises" section, flaws and drawbacks should be mentioned inside the article wherever is relevant to add them. -- AdrianTM 13:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

AdrianTM, you are right, but I wish you had made your point a little more forcefully. I see people complain that it seems unfair that *some* OSes have a "criticism" section, but others do not. Rather merely agree with AdrianTM in a way that may appear to be mere opinion, I'm going to use the sledgehammer of official policy, guidelines, or widely-agreed-with essays: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_that_can_imply_a_point_of_view, Template:Criticism-section, and Wikipedia:Criticism. Those explain why there should be no "Criticism of Linux" article or section, and why the same should be true for every OS. (Although oddly enough, the Talk:Criticism of Linux talk page still exists ...). --70.130.44.41 18:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting me with official arguments. I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to do a FAQ for Talk page since this question will come up over and over again, because we'll be suspected that we are Linux fanboys when we are merely trying to upheld some good standards in this page. -- AdrianTM 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All the policy in the world will never prevent people adding "criticism" sections full of crap to articles on subjects they disapprove of; the policy we have means that it can at least be removed quickly. Linux is hardly the worst for this kind of thing; try looking after Al Gore for a couple of weeks.

As for Criticism of Linux, someone should take that to RfD. Chris Cunningham 09:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Many publishers and authors use GNU/Linux instead of Linux

There is a huge number of publishers and book authors who use the name GNU/Linux when referring to the operating system. An example is O'Reilly's Unix in a Nutshell: A Desktop Reference, Covers GNU/Linux, Mac OS X, and Solaris. I could find more examples or create a complete list had I the time I wanted. Perhaps we should listen to what established authors have to say instead of using a name no one but a few newbies use for the whole OS. NerdyNSK 04:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No comment -- AdrianTM 04:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Google isn't a way to settle arguments, but neither are lame anecdotes. That said, O'Reilly isn't a particularly good example anyway. Chris Cunningham 11:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the list of those using Linux would be longer than those using GNU/Linux. What really bothers me is when I see things like "GNU, the kernel of Linux". This is a never-ending war, like vi-emacs. I'd change the opening sentence to ... Linux is the kernel (that is, the core), of a group of operating systems ... or something like that, but I'm not going to. htom 13:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly a POV pushing because we should use the name that distributions use or use the common denominator, most of the distros use "Linux", even Debian who uses now "GNU/Linux" tag started by calling itself "Debian Linux", that's history, you can't change that. And take for example Macs they are not called Darwin/BSD/Macs or anything like that, they are simple called Macs and the system OS X and nobody from BSD bitches about that (or they might but nobody cares)... anyway let's restart this discussion after you convice Apple to change the name of their system to OS Mac/BSD/X... -- AdrianTM 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha! Good argument, AdrianTM! XD Maybe it's time to realize that all the GNU/Linux-pages are included in the Linux pages. --212.247.27.48 (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

In 1992, Torvalds explained that he pronounces Linux as /ˈlɪnʊks/,[4] though other variations are common.

This line in the introducion could be confusing because Linus Torvalds has yet to be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.166.131 (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 Desktop Linux Survey

Do you think we can use some info from this survey? Or it's not reliable enough info? -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

One question

Who decided that Wikipedia shall call the operating system "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux"? --212.247.27.48 (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)--212.247.27.48 (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have completely lost confidence in Wikipedia now

Calling Linux an operating system is wrong. It can't be right. There are no valid arguments for it. This article is biased and incorrect. Don't read it. --212.247.27.48 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the above comment is serious or just trolling to wind people up. As has been mentioned many times before, when most people say the word Linux they are talking about an operating system that follows a particular design factor. An enycyclopaedia must reflect this definition, and identify any dispute over the technical meaning of terms. I deal with users every day who talk about 'the Internet' when they mean 'the World-Wide Web' but I'd get (rightly) punched in the face if started getting pedantic with them. Mrstonky (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be outrageous if we would call the World Wide Web "Internet" on Wikipedia. But you want that? --212.247.27.179 (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "Linux" is widely used to refer to two things: the Linux kernel itself, and the set of operating systems based on it. In dealing with software, Wikipedia frequently has a tension between a technical focus (which would lead one to emphasize the kernel) and a market focus (which would lead one to emphasize the products that are made with it). --FOo (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My views on the "Criticisms of Linux" issue

A while ago, I was scolded by several of you for tagging Linux "NPOV" and giving common-sense criticisms of Linux. You said that if the criticisms aren't on the web, there are no valid criticisms.

Linux on the Internet is similar to the American academic freedom crisis. All opponents of Linux, just like opponents of liberalism and socialism in the colleges, are silenced, censored, and humiliated. Any criticism of Linux is either treated as (1) invalid or (2) Microsoft-funded.

I did once find a Web site listing scholarly criticisms of Linux and open-source (including from a security standpoint - the man made an interesting argument about amateur coders making their way in). Unfortunately, due to the Linux issue I mentioned above, it is as impossible to find this page as finding a needle in a haystack. Every page with the word "anti-Linux" or "criticisms of Linux" is a pro-Linux news article. This is due to the personal biases, operating platforms, and funding sources of most Web sites, including Wikipedia itself.

I myself use Linux often - it is occasionally "fun" and such things as System Rescue CD are effective in data recovery for my business. But I am mostly critical of it, both from an economic and technological point of view. Neither I nor any family member or friend of mine has or has ever had any relationship with Microsoft Corporation or any of its employees.

You are probably unhappy with this addition to the talk page. In fact, due to the "tyranny of the majority" (no pun intended) nature of Wikipedia, my opinions will likely be erased, censored, criticized, and generally treated like garbage.

Feel free to respond. -RedBlade7 (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm a Linux user, but I will agree that there are opponents to Linux and not all of them are Microsoft-funded or talking garbage :). I seem to recall seeing an article about Linux security at one point too, but can't remember taking much notice of it at the time.

Probably being pedantic here, but you say you have no relationship with Microsoft and you don't run Linux except for "fun". Do you run Windows as your desktop operating system? If so, that does effectively mean you are in a relationship with Microsoft (like I said, being pedantic) but I understand the point you are getting at (never met Microsoft, not being back-handed by them).

Anyway, I would be quite happy to see some valid discussion of the criticisms of Linux. As long as they are validly referenced to proper discussion articles (not just "Linux is rubbish, Windows is the best") then I'd have no problem with that. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"my opinions will likely be erased, censored, criticized, and generally treated like garbage" -- you seem to ignore what Wikipedia is supposed to be, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of opinions of editors, it should contain referenced info from reliable sources. Yes, there is some wiggling room about what is considered "reliable source" but few people would consider Microsoft as a "reliable source" when it comes to Linux, also don't use blogs and forums as references (per WP policy). As for a section named "Criticism" see the discussion two sections above. -- AdrianTM 13:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This article says many many good things about Linux but it doesn't really say any bad things. Is it better in all respects than OS X and Windows XP? 206.248.135.223 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

AdrianTM points out a problem with your writing, RedBlade7, and that is that lashing out at others, making accusations of suppression and persecution, is not going to win you any friends. (The "academic freedom crisis", in particular, is just so much conservative sour grapes, but I won't get into that here.) I've read your previous comments on the issue, and frankly they sound remarkably like the entertainment industry's arguments against new technology such as audiotape, videotape, MP3 players, etc. The fact is that new business models do arise from time to time, and it appears your entire beef with open source software stems from the fact that it scuttled your chances of being a shareware author. (I'm not even sure what you mean by calling it "exploitation" -- consulting and support aren't legitimate ways of making money off of software?)

The fact is, if you're going to talk criticism of Linux, the development model should properly be covered under open source, with this article covering primarily historical and technical issues. On the technical front, the Torvalds-Tannenbaum debate is probably the major one, given the lack of any substantive proof of plagiarism from SCO vs. IBM and related cases. On the historical front, Linus is notoriously blunt and has rubbed a few people the wrong way (re: the BitKeeper incident). But attacking the development model is really outside the scope of the article. Haikupoet 07:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(The "academic freedom crisis", in particular, is just so much conservative sour grapes, but I won't get into that here.) That is a lie. When I was going to school, I called for FDA reform leading to eventual abolition of the agency in my senior thesis, and was censored, humiliated, embarrassed, and not even allowed to show my evidence that it worked. The same applied to me when I (back then) supported the war - humiliated, embarrassed, put on the spot. At one point, a professor yelled at me for criticizing socialized medicine (even using swear words!). I once had points taken off a test for using the phrase "excessive male influence" instead of "male domination." I don't care what your views are. But don't be intolerant of mine (isn't "tolerance" what liberalism is all about?).

As for Linux, you are doing the exact same thing. You are intolerant of any difference in opinion, even when the opinion is backed by evidence (unlike "Microsoft FUD," which is a mere conspiracy theory), and are practicing mass censorship, which is incredibly Orwellian, especially given Wikipedia's enormous influence and power over Internet users. -RedBlade7 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your sob story about the Academic freedom crisis has no place in Wikipedia either. One of the cardinal rules is no original research. The reason why it must be cited is so that it can be verified. Wiki is not your personal ideological sandbox, it's supposed to be an objective and neutral encyclopedia. If you can cite evidence of Linux critics being silenced, then by all means do so. Since Linux is an open source OS, I seriously doubt there is some cabal trying to silence it's critics. Linux's programmers are anyone on the interwebs who makes a contribution. There is no unified group of Linux coders and supporters.Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into the substance of your other arguments (as they aren't germane to Linux), it's often said that one must not be so open-minded that one's brain falls out. And your defensiveness and/or paranoia shows that you've given just about as much thought to these issues as it takes to apply them to yourself and your own personal interests, and no further. That doesn't make for a very solid footing for your arguments. Anyway, as a general rule I don't think the security argument really applies -- after all, in cryptography, it's generally assumed that any potential attackers know what you're up to, and the task is to secure the data in spite of that. Security through obscurity (e.g. hiding your security flaws behind a closed source license) can never be relied upon in any circumstances. Given how open sharing and collaboration has made modern science what it is, it seems highly unlikely that applying a collaborative model to the very similar field of software could possibly be a bad thing. Haikupoet 00:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what's wrong with Linux?

1. many device vendors do not support it out-of-the-box
2. lack of games
3. lack of microsoft word
4. fragmented community, flame wars like you never done seen before, people arguing over GNU/Linux vs. Linux ad infinitum, etc. general lack of true leadership
5. one step behind other operating systems (all these apps that mimic what other OS'es provide)
6. generally crap video codec support (how many times has mplayer or xine or vlc started glitching on you? quicktime doesn't do that.)
7. lack of uptake in offices; it's difficult telling your manager that you want to use linux
8. all the baggage that goes along with open source, which some people don't like, e.g. MS FUD.

Most of these things are not Linux's "fault". That doesn't mean they don't affect usage of the operating system. It also more generally means that Linux isn't the wonderful panacea that this article basically makes it out to be. It can do everything, but the reality is that it doesn't. There are articles and mailing list postings from notable people that talk about these things, but if you ignore the issue of course you won't find them. 206.248.135.223 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

All these issues are fine to be mentioned in the article provided that 1. are well referenced (reliable sources) and 2. are introduced organically where they belong: devices in the "hardware" section, games and MS Word in "usability" and so on, not into a troll magnet named "criticism" (again, Linux is not an art piece to have a "Criticism and praises" section, it's also against the WP manual of style) -- AdrianTM 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for being open-minded. 206.248.135.223 03:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong.

1. GNU is much easier to install than Windows. It is just that most Windows users have never installed their operating systems.
2. It's a feature not a bug if an operating system can't run Microsoft Office.
3. Flame wars aren't the business of operating systems
4. GNU reimplemented most features of Unix but it is the most innovative operating system. Also think of KDE. Other desktop enviroments copy from KDE.
5. You can use proprietary video codecs on GNU but then you don't have a free computer system.
6. What you find hard to tell your boss isn't a case this article should talk about.
7. I guess you mean the idea of free software with “the baggage that goes along with open source”. This is the key point. Elaborate on it. --mms 14:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• 206.248.135.223 is not wrong, they just hold that view. From your writing, I feel that you are wrong for referring to "GNU" instead of "Linux". However, you are entitled to hold that view. Please don't bite people just because they hold a different view to you. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 15:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

mms: I wasn't talking about installation issues but device drivers for video cards and all sorts of fancy hardware. Usually if they aren't supported it is because companies won't profit from it or because they don't want to divest trade secrets and then run into the binary blob issue with the kernel. NVIDIA and ATI are changing in this respect but that wasn't the case for many years. The comment about open source or free software or whatever you want to call it (see fragmented community point) was merely that many of the criticisms people have to make of Linux also just apply to open source in general. However, Linux is the single most important example of an open source (free software) operating system so maybe some of those things should be addressed here. As for flame wars not being the business of operating systems, unfortunately I've found that actually, flame wars and politics are XX% of what consume people's energies when working on operating systems, where XX is a fairly large number. See your post above as an example. I've said what I had to say so I'll leave you alone now. If you want to find reliable sources supporting these points you will find them, but if you have an agenda to promote Linux as the best operating system out there then it is very easy to ignore them, or discount them for whatever reason. Mailing list postings from Linus are acceptable as sources,they are practically taken as the word of God, and so a million dollar smear campaign funded by Microsoft should also be acceptable, as should articles by Dvorak or whoever it is that wants to complain about Linux. 206.248.135.223 17:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical criticism added [4] which still applies to today. Suprising that it wasn't already in the article, or perhaps less so if it previously was and gradually whitewashed out. 07:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.205.144 (talk)

linux

i would like to get a good understanding to linux,how it works,terms used in it,and in due course explanation and definitions used in linux —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.4 (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but a talk page is not a help desk. There is information on the article page that will answer some of your questions, and there are forums and magazines out and about that will help you further. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tux image

I see that Image:NewTux.svg is used to depict the Linux kernel. However, as far as I'm aware, this is just an unofficial offshoot of the "official" mascot, which can still be seen at Image:Tux.svg. Tux.svg is the actual mascot, also seen at kernel.org, which we should be using instead. In case nobody disagrees, I'll just change the image. —msikma (user, talk) 15:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We've argued over this before; the only real argument for using NewTux is that it's a more aesthetically pleasing image, but to be honest I don't see why people get worked up about using the official image instead. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ummm, Wikipedia is in no position to be taking liberties with presenting the Linux mascot. Whoever thinks that's a good idea needs to stop editing the encyclopedia, because they're doing us a disservice. -/- Warren 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

After looking around a bit more, I see NewTux has replaced the correct Tux image elsewhere too. This is unacceptable because it means the encyclopedia is essentially lying about what the correct logo is. Is anyone here really okay with that? ...... I doubt it. I've restored Tux.svg on this article, as well as on templates that appear in article space. If the Linux wikiproject wants to use their own revised tux logo, they may do so, of course. -/- Warren 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use Image:Tux.svg just because it looks better. Mike92591 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think that this is essentially splitting hairs over a small detail really. However, I'm not particularly bothered about which image we use. The NewTux one just looks better in my opinion. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Newtux.svg can be seen as an aesthetically pleasing image, more so than the original mascot, but that's something personal. I myself like the original one better, partially because the "shiny" style of newtux.svg is momentary. But again, that's just something personal. As far as I'm aware, most images that pertain to "official" linux, especially the Kernel Archives, still use the original mascot, which is most likely the "official" mascot, if such a thing even exists.

I personally don't see this as splitting hairs, since, well, it is our interpretation of what the official Linux mascot is. Linux is important enough for us to consider this carefully, in any case. —msikma (user, talk) 12:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant, JGXenite. We don't have the mandate to present anything other than the correct, official logo. -/- Warren 13:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, is the Linux Foundation actively involved in promoting the Larry Ewing original? Does it have an official position on the legitimacy of derivative works? People are defending the original like we're the Mozilla Corporation or something... Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't seem to find Tux so very easily on their site. Their old site appears to have a favicon of the original version of Tux, though. There are a few pages that depict that same version, like this one. —msikma (user, talk) 16:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Linux as an OS

The article should list distributions in the top most box instead of having the details on Linux kernel, which makes the article confusing. The Linux distribution article is closer to what this article should be. The distributions are the OS not the Linux kernel. --62.142.194.228 (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to remove the version number entirely. It doesn't really make sense. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Systematic anti-GNU bias

I believe that the intro paragraphs are biased against GNU and are kept this way through aggressive editing by Chris Cunningham, a Sun employee, in violation of NPOV. Please do not revert my factual edits without discussion here first. Noahslater (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you're also the user who wasn't signed in, then.

There have been literally years of discussion on this issue on the talk page. I'd encourage you to read through the archives. On the matter at hand, the "filled a gap" argument is an ex post facto argument which didn't take hold in the GNU camp until it was obvious that Linux had more momentum than the Hurd and that co-opting it was a better idea than treating it as a separate OS (as all early GNU literature did). My employer is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and ad hominem attacks do your argument no credit. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Gronky's last edit was a marked improvement on the current version, and may even be a better compromise than the original. We should work from that, adding back in the distro line which was removed as "inaccurate" (?) and see where we can go from there. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is also removing emphasis from GNU, which is in violation of NPOV. Noahslater (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The politics, or perceived politics, and timing are not important. What is important is that the GNU operating system was augmented with a non-GNU kernel. The previous intro that you are defending placed all the emphasis on the kernel, which is misleading at best, deceitful at worst.

Also, I didn't make any ad hominem attacks. I did not comment on your character, only that your possition at Sun and your obvious anti-GNU, anti-FSF opinions combined with your aggressive editing consitute, in my opionion, systematic bias. Noahslater (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One does not "augment" a set of userspace programs and libraries with a kernel any more than one "augments" a car with an engine. The FSF's position that GNU was an "operating system without a kernel" is akin to my suggesting that I am a fighter pilot, albeit one with no plane or flight training. The existence of GNU tools prior to the of Linux is in no way indicative of a dependency on said tools. Furthermore, Torvalds himself specifically distinguishes between Linux and GNU in his original project announcement, so the FSF's implication that "Linux completes GNU" is flat-out false. Anyway, this is all covered in the talk archives.

As for systematic bias, my personal position on the FSF's role in Linux was arrived at after copious amounts of research and discussion. That it differs from yours does not immediately imply that it is I who is biased. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Given that an OS comprises kernel/libraries/userspace it is not unreasonable to state that you can augment libraries/userspace with a kernel. When Torvalds distinguishes between GNU and his project that is because he was developing an operating system. As you will know, only the kernel of that operating system is still widely used today. GNU/Linux is the GNU operating system without the kernel and the Linux operating system without the libraries or userspace tools. Noahslater (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Any short amount of research should show my affiliations with GNU and I readily admit my bias. My edits, however, are trying to redress an imbalance that I perceive your bais to have introduced.

My "bias" stems from not having an acute conflict of interest in how the article represents affiliates of mine. It further reflects twenty pages of discussion on the issue. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You are presumably being paid by Sun to edit Wikipedia else you are doing it without authorisation. Either way it is disturbing given the articles you are editing. Are Sun aware of your activies? Noahslater (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that intended to be a threat? I edit on my own time, the positions I assert do not necessarily refect the position of my employers, yadda yadda. It's heartening to know that old grudges die hard, but my employer is of no relevance here. I'd appreciate it if you immediately stopped implying otherwise, because now you're definitely in the realm of unacceptable commentary. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, my comments are clearly non-threatening. It is cause for concern when an employee of a company such as Sun is editing articles on Linux, GNU and the FSF during standard working hours. It is reasonable to assume that you are doing so on company time and thus the question of Sun's awareness of your activities is entirely appropriate. Noahslater (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like me to add a disclaimer to my user page (which is, of course, where I openly disclosed my employer for all to see), then I'd be happy to oblige. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Kernel overstatements

Noahslater, I agree with you that the kernel's role is exagerated in the intro. I've made that point here many times.

Thumperward and I were (I think), editing to improve readability. We weren't re-engineering the balance between GNU and Linux. In his edits, I think Thumperward did tip that balance, but rather than react by overcompensation, I just returned it to where it was so that we could focus on the issue of clear wording and readability. I would like to fix the balance, but during the quiet times it would be nice to also address some readability issues.

I don't think GNU Hurd deserves mention in the intro, and talking about GNU Bash might also be diving into details too quickly. But if there is a debate about the balance, yes, I agree that Linus's kernel is exagerated. --Gronky (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoned response, it makes a lot of sense. I agree that my mentioning of glibc/coreutils/bash may be one step over the line in the other direction but I think the hurd is important here to provide the contrast between the original operating system and the one formed with the addition of the linux kernel. Noahslater (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that. I have removed the references to the glibc/coreutils/bash/hurd as I think this dives too quickly into the details. Noahslater (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

GNU has its own article to discuss, in depth, the history of the GNU operating system. This article specifically concentrates on that entity known to the FSF as "GNU/Linux". Anyway, the current version is wildly off-balance and should be reverted to Gronky's, for the reason given in the section above. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, GNU has it's own article, so does the Linux kernel. What's your point? Can you give any reason why it is "wildly off-balance"? I have already removed the detailed listing as per Gronky's comments. Noahslater (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the word "inspired", since it's a bit artistic and I'm not sure it's true. What the combination really inspired was a project for RMS to think of a name that mentions GNU. I've also removed the sentence about Linux being added to GNU. Which was added to which something that I accept can be debated, and I don't think we have a reference. Lastly, I've re-added the bit about the name "Linux" being the kernel's name before it was a name for the OS. --Gronky (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think these are good edits Gronky. I added the word "alternate" for clarification. Noahslater (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention to debate the GNU/Linux naming with anti-FSF folk here, I am too busy and it's been done a thousand times. Can we all agree that the current version is a nice balance now? Noahslater (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that this version was an improvement on the previous rewrite, which wasn't necessary anyway. I imagine this will end up getting reverted, especially if you're not willing to debate the issue beyond accusing others of bias. The reason it was "done a thousand times" with the result it had was that this was the consensus version, and acute agenda-pushing is not going to result in a long-term change. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you keep mentioning that it has been talked about a thousand times. Now it is being talked about again. Can you please give me a concrete reason you feel like mine and Gronky's edits are no good?

I think that you have been acutely pushing your agenda and because of your aggresive edits it has resulted in long-term change. Your clear anti-FSF position is harmful for NPOV. Noahslater (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not conflate your edits and Gronky's here. He's done this dance before, and has worked to create a compromise edit. You fully reversed the position of the article lead. I disagree with your edits because they are directly in line with the FSF's talking points, and thus lack any objectivity. I have only stylistic quibbles with Gronky's. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagreed with your edits because they were directly inline with your anti-FSF position and thus lack any objectivity. You can mince words all you like.

Do you agree that the lead is satisfactory now? Noahslater (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's still a step back from Gronky's initial rewrite. And my "anti-FSF position" is one borne of experience and research, which are perfectly normal ways to develop an opinion; it has not been handed down to me by a self-interests group of advocates. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying no without giving any reasoning. Please provide a concrete reason you think this version is inferior. Also, yes, we disagree with each other and we are both biased, there is no problem with any of that. Letting our bias show is the problem which is why I feel the current version better. Noahslater (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good edits Gronky. I like how it reads now, a lot better. Noahslater (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Exagerated corporate contributions in intro

I know it's a great sign of mainstream success that the software as been accepted by Dell, IBM, etc. etc. but this is unfair to the system's developers who did the bulk of the work when these corporations wouldn't give them the time of day. The contributions are significant today, but they were zero for the first 15 years of the system's life, and today they are sometimes great and sometimes "Oh, this package sucks and will never sell - let's GPL it do a pro-Linux press release!" I haven't decided how it would be best done, but I am thinking about how to more accurately represent who wrote the OS (looking from a distance, not at the project-affiliation level). --Gronky (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Corbet did a fantastic breakdown of kernel contributions for LWN a while back; that'd be a good start. Given that this is 2008 now, and the "big players" in question have all been involved since at least 2000, I don't think it's fair to suggest that "the bulk of the work" was done beforehand for anything except Emacs. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this: [5] ? Thanks for the hint, I'll give it a read.

Something to keep in mind, though, is that while the current WidgetAllocator might be written by JohnnyCorp, the original WidgetAllocator was written in 1995 by Some Guy. Sure, this imaginary part was replaced by a 25% faster one written by MaryCorp in 2002, and the current JohnnyCorp one is more reliable, but does today's non-existence of Mr. Guy's code mean that he didn't contribute to the kernel?

Who contributed more, the guy who made it work from scratch with no docs or the guy who tweaked it 7 years later?

I think this won't be so simple to address, but I think it's clear that the current list of credits is doing an injustice to some people and is misrepresenting how the OS came to exist today. --Gronky (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Meh. We're not a memorial service. If the Faceless Legions in Red Hat and Intel's programming pits are responsible for the majority of the current code, we should say so. We have sub-articles to deal with the history of individual components. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with this sentence

"The size of the GNU contribution led to the alternate name GNU/Linux "

1. first thing is that not the size that let to the alternate name, it was a specific request by Richard Stallman -- he mentioned many reasons: promote freedom ideas, it's the proper name (according to him), for giving credit, size is only one argument he uses to support his request and to support the GNU/Linux vs. other variants e.g., Linux/GNU. I think we should provide the information that the name was requested and promoted by Stallman, we don't need to embellish this into complicated sentences that explain the name by other factors.
2. the sentence legitimates the claim, while it might be true it's not Wikipedia's job to do original research and legitimate such claims. -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it "legitimates" (not sure you can use that word as an adjective) anything. The name "GNU/Linux" /is/ used by some people, that much is fact and worth mentioning. The reasoning behind it is another issue. Noahslater (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I am not native speaker and invent words in English from time to time, but from here it seems it can be used as an transitive verb. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed "size of the", since you're right that there were more reasons than that one and they're too complex to go into in that sentence. --Gronky (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead now doesn't have links to either Linus Torvalds (or Linux Torvalds) or Linux kernel. It really should. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Should it also have a link to RMS? Noahslater (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Must've gotten lost in the shuffling. Returned. For the Linux kernel link, I've used the link text "the operating system's kernel". That text isn't as similar as I'd like to the title of the article it links to, but I can't see a less confusing way to talk about the kernel who's name is "Linux" (without getting un-intro-ishly verbose). --Gronky (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit I've just made seems to clear that up without reading too badly. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Better, thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a mention of Richard Stallman and made the wording identical to Linus's mention. Nslater (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work, I personally like how the info is presented now in a neutral tone. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed - Linux operating system for PS2?

I'm not doubting that it is, Linux is teh awesome, but we need citations for that.--EleFlameMax (talk) 11:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not in the lead, we don't. Regardless, Linux for PlayStation 2 has its own article and everything. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between a separate program to transform your PS2 into Linux, and the PS2/3 actually running on a modified Linux. I haven't seen any evidence of this what-so-ever, and if you can't verify that claim, I'll take it down.--EleFlameMax (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right, I getcha. Yes, the claim that "Linux is used on" these systems is misleading. It should probably just be removed. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence...

"Linux is a Unix-like computer operating system." Even though the top of the article says that the article is about operating systems that use the kernel, you can't give the name Linux credit for being one. I'm not saying that you call it GNU/Linux, because that term is also not right in all contexts (GNU isn't the only operating system that is capable of running on Linux), but don't go calling anything "this-and-that" when in fact it's only "this". Afarnen (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What would you prefer it said? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Errr, no. The hatnote is abundantly clear about what this article's subject is. GNU/Linux advocates should simply mentally substitute the word "Linux" for "GNU/Linux" wherever it occurs in the article. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, when you convince Apple or people who maintain Mac OS X page to call it something like BSD/Mach/Mac OS X please let us know and we'll modify this article too. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're suggesting we name the OS after the biggest part. Ok, let's call this page GNU. --Gronky (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop it, both of you. This page is not an open request to continually fight the same argument. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

One penguin too many

I don't like that there are two Tux on the page one under another, is it possible to eliminate one? -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If the top infobox had more information then it would push the second penguin image downward and out of view (well, at least on my screen). Pádraig Coogan (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham is destroying Wikipedia

It is very obvious that Chris Cunningham is engaged in a personal wikipedia "war" against the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation. Just a look at his remarks would make one think that we are reading words that would come from a fanatical sympathizer of Linus Torvalds.

Chris Cunningham likes to play as one of the parts in the dispute and as judge. Honestly with people like Chris Cunningham allowed to distort the information & the truth so that articles suit his own ideas and beliefs is what is giving Wikipedia a terrible image among the academic community. Chris Cunningham and other people like him who under the false appearance of neutrality come here to push their own ideas. Cunningham prides himself on the "large" amount of edits he has done. There may be quantity but not quality in what he is doing.

He mentions consensus and discussion for what he does but when users ask him to point them to the archives of the discussion where the consensus he talks about was reached he simply refuses and gives no proof to his claims.

Mr. Cunningham is anyone paying you to spend so much of your time distorting the truth on wikipedia? How much do you get? if you were really working for Sun as you say then how come you spend so much time and effort on wikipedia? do you do this from your office using your company's computers while pretending to be working? In that sense one could say that it is Sun who pays for your time here.

Get to work and leave wikipedia alone! Don't destroy it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bald Eeagle (talk • contribs) 23:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bald Eagle, you're right on the mark up until the paragraph suggesting he's getting paid or doing his employer's bidding. Such speculation is unnecessary, and FWIW, I don't think it's true. Having butted heads with Thumperward regularly for a few years, I've never gotten the impression that he's editing on behalf of anyone but himself. --Gronky (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)