Talk:Linux

linux belongs to which company

Could you please tellme linux belongs to which company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.70.42 (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean 'Linux' as in the subject of this article? Please read the article and it explains that Linux is not a single product, but a name widely used to describe a collection of operating systems that commonly use the Linux kernel. These individual operating systems (distributions) are owned by the companies/people that own them in so much as they own the trademarks for the name. However, much of the software in them is free and as such isn't owned by them. The trademark 'Linux' is owned by the original creator of the kernel, Linus Torvalds. It is licensed by the Linux Mark Institute. All of this is in the article and the article about the kernel. Thanks, -Localzuk^(talk) 16:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, by "owned" I assume you mean who owns the copyright. Most free software is copyrighted by the people that wrote it. Everything that is licensed is owned by somebody. Most of GNU is copyright the free software foundation but other free software is copyrighted by thousands if people. So the answer is thousands of people and companies own the copyright to GNU/Linux. -- Borb (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This mythical association with a company (which I hear often from non-technical people) is one of the reasons to avoid ambiguity by attaching "Linux" to just the kernel itself. Freed42 (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Where did the Rfc go?

Is the "GNU/Linux" Rfc over? Where did the discussion go? I thought it was ongoing. --Gronky (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's in the archive, I didn't check, did you? The discussion was silent for days, nobody had anything else to add, but feel free to start to beat the dead horse again, I don't have many things to do these days, I could continue the discussion... -- man with one red shoe (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

See the top of the page... "Discussion about Linux vs. GNU/Linux is ongoing on this sub-page. Please do not discuss the name on the current page." 76.10.155.195 (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see that infobox among the other ignorable infoboxes. ManWORS: yes, I had checked the archives. --Gronky (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Move Linus' Picture

Linus' Picture should be above Stalin's as Linus is the founder of the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.0.40.10 (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you're trying to be funny by writing Stalin instead of Stallman... But anyway if you actually read that section then you would realise that the pictures are in chronological order. Stallman started GNU many years before Linus started Linux. -- Borb (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've placed them side-by-side now, with the aim of preventing any more bickering over this. If anyone else asks, they're in alphabetical order. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is RMS' picture bigger? OK, OK, I'm only joking... man with one red shoe (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I'm glad that was brought up in jest. Suffice to say that it's a commons pic, so if someone feels an ALMIGHTY RAGE regarding the width then they can create a version which matches the aspect ratio used in Linus's and we can use that instead. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Claim about history of GNU project needs an adequate footnote

The early history that describes what was missing from the GNU OS has a footnote with inadequate support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#cite_note-gnu_history-5

The footnote just mentions a missing kernel, whereas the article claims much more was missing. Freed42 (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The footnote is somewhat less than objective. We need a better source for this; I'm sure there was a good quote from one of the early GNU kernel hackers regarding this, and there was a really good one I found once which sadly came from MetaFilter (and thus wasn't reliable). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Flawed lead paragraph needs replacement

The lead paragraph calls "Linux" as an "OS", but then misleadingly mentions it as "an example of FOSS development". Since nearly all distributions of this "OS" contain non-free software (e.g., gNewSense being a rare exception) and since more generally there is such an enormous diversity of groups covered (everything from OpenOffice to companies making non-free add-ons), the "example" phrase is false and devoid of meaning. "Example" would be appropriate here if applied just to the free software subset of the "Linux" kernel (this kernel is always distributed with non-free files).

Similarly, the phrase "typically all underlying source code can be freely..." is also nonsense, since only very few instances (e.g., gNewSense) of the subject of this article have all source code that is freely modifiable, etc. Thus, it's untypical, not typical.

Perhaps a "Linux" enthusiast can replace the lead paragraph with something correct. Freed42 (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's look at that sentence: "Linux is one of the most prominent examples of free software and open source development". I think the problem with this sentence is the word "example"; the sentence is being used to indicate that the OS has a prominent mindshare in thinking about FOSS, but "example" rather supposes that it embodies such values. Rather than nitpick over whether it does embody those principles, we could change this to reflect that the public perception is that it does. What about "Linux is one of the most commonly-cited examples of free software and open source development"?

The second one is even easier. Replace "all" with "almost all". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The second suggestion is indeed an easy fix. The first suggestion needs more attention. First, it is not nitpicking to note the nonsense of what is, in effect, "A massively diverse conglomeration of free and non-free development projects is an example of free software development." Not only do I question the appropriateness of the unqualified emphasis of how a falsehood is widely cited, but I also question the repeated implication in this paragraph that the results represent some kind of unified effort. It not only is false, but never was true. Freed42 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Torvalds's aim was to create an operating system. GNU's aim was to create an operating system. Outwith a relatively tiny group of hypergeeks who would wage decade-long wars over the semantics therein, the OS is just as monolithic as Windows is (note that I'm picking Windows precisely because free software people typically treat it as monolothic when Microsoft geeks would be horrified at the suggestion). The intro to this article is a 10,000 feet look at the subject of "the free OS with the Linux kernel", which is all that most people know it as. We can elaborate in the core of the article. To nitpick too much in the intro is the downfall of many a scitech article on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We can leave those semantics behind. Could you explain why "Linux" is as monolithic as MS Windows? How many distinct distributions from how many wholesalers of Windows can I order off the net or mangle and redistribute as I wish? Where are the charges of "monopoly" in "Linux"? I highly doubt that "most people" know what "Linux", "OS", or a "kernel" is. They might think of "Linux" as a company, some "computer system", "some kind of computer software that is incompatible with Windows", or "the competitor to Microsoft that is cheap or free of charge." I am having trouble seeing why a 10,000 feet look should be obscured by perpetuating misperceptions. Does such a look require baseless hype? Freed42 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If it were a "misconception" then we wouldn't still be arguing over what exactly the makeup of the OS is and trying to decide who the key vendor is, would we? The point is that to some degree there simply isn't a definite answer here. By trying to wedge one into the lead we do two things: we confuse readers with trivia they probably don't need at that stage, and we incite geeks (that's us) to bicker about things even more. Basically, the only compromise we have here is to provide a mushy half-answer which isn't likely to please a lot of partisans - but it's proven to be accessible enough for inexpert readers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The misperception in this case is that there is some single thing--that's one of the things I keep trying to point out, i.e., your "no definite answer". Whatever I might have suggested was not intended to be a single answer to wedge in--that's why I suggested that a "Linux" supporter do something about it. Now how about something like "commonly perceived..."? It is on much safer ground since indeed most people have no clue that it would in fact be a wild and chaotic mix of free and non-free software development; they probably have zero clue about "free" and "non-free" anyway. It also subsumes "commonly cited" because if I perceive "Linux" as representative of FOSS, then I will cite it as such when the occasion arises. Freed42 (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For the simple reason that we can't source "perceived", but we can source "cited". Not much more to it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I could work with "cited" but still see the need to briefly note the enormous diversity behind the "Linux" label. I'll try to come up with something. Freed42 (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any "enormous diversity behind the Linux", Linux is the kernel and distributions that use it. What else is "Linux"? Did I miss anything? -- man with one red shoe (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was sloppy. "Linux" referring to an "OS" could be the kernel or the kernel plus anything installed or installable with the kernel, including any distro containing the kernel (at least hundreds of distinct "kinds" with any manner of different desktop environment, window manager, and myriad other defaults, etc.). Consider people referring to "Windows". Would these people also be thinking of the Oracle DB, Quicken, MS Office, etc. as part of the OS? I highly doubt that; they probably recognize that different *prices* indicate distinct products. They probably end up being far more precise than the average person speaking of "Linux". Saying that Windows XP is an example of, say, non-free software development is irrefutable. After all, if software is not free, it is non-free. The typical manifestation of "Linux"--even the kernel itself--is also non-free since it contains many non-free files (e.g., non-free firmware, etc.). There are rare exceptions (e.g., gNewSense), but as I have been repeatedly told and try to accept, they barely matter on Wikipedia. This non-free software is not some kind of triviality either: it exists in nearly every distro at high and low levels; NDISwrapper (for non-free drivers) still matters a great deal; more and more distinctions are being made between free (more of a goal than a reality) and non-free distros; and then there is the notorious example of Tivo's non-free "Linux" installations, in addition to a very likely growing list of embedded installations (also at higher layers such as non-free Maemo on some Nokia products) with non-freeness mattering a great deal. One might try to argue that when people refer to "Linux" they refer to something analogous to, say, "Windows XP". "Linux", however, is commonly indentified with "distro", for which, say, Windows XP, has no remotely comparable analog, so I reject this argument. Thus, I think that repeating a blanket, unqualified claim that the nebulous "Linux" is commonly cited as an example of FOSS development only worsens (and exploits) already muddy waters. Freed42 (talk) 05:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hm. Are you arguing that a typical distro has non-free components in the default install, or are you arguing that a typical distro has non-free components readily available? The distinction is not trivial; a typical Debian-based distro such as Ubuntu usually has all the core as "free", with installers having to enable special repositories to get at the "non-free" components. As for the idea that there are non-free components in the kernel... . --Alvestrand (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the non-free components in the Linux kernel, there are any number of inventories that list these. One of the more cited ones is here[1]. The gNewSense distribution has at least two files that together list most if not all of the non-free components of Linux kernel 2.6.24. Some non-free files (of a vanilla Linux kernel) are firmware images, some have non-free distribution terms.

"Readily available" is my criterion. We could easily argue that "readily available" is weaselly or a slippery slope. My counterargument is simply that it is an issue of norms: what characterizes this so-called FOSS development example that the label "Linux" is supposed to convey? What is the de facto policy about a committment to FOSS? "Readily available" non-free software conflicts with the "example of FOSS". Ubuntu is instructive. Is the typical Ubuntu user going to care about multiverse and restricted? In any case, the user will end up identifying it with Ubuntu, i.e., as a part of the Ubuntu OS, which, as so many are quick to remind us, here, is an instance of the "Linux OS". In trying to grab all the "good" for "Linux", it is unrealistic to ignore the "bad" out of convenience. - Freed42 (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, it isn't "unrealistic". Opinions differ amongst those who actually work in the kernel as to what exactly qualifies as non-free once you get down to firmware, and as pointed out the current stable Ubuntu doesn't load proprietary drivers without specific post-install approval by the end user. In essence, you're now arguing that the potential to use proprietary software is what makes a system tainted, which is preposterous. gNewSense is exactly one shell script less tainted than Ubuntu in that sense. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I was careful to give "Linux" the benefit of the doubt, Ubuntu being relatively benign. I did not bother mentioning PCLinuxOS, Suse Linux, Linspire, or whatever. Second, "potential" is a direct consequence of policy here--that's why I focused on policy. If the degree of non-free stuff were not significant, the distros could just drop it all right now with no major problems, but we know those days are long, long over if they were ever here at all. Which distros (which, again, are identified with "Linux" which is identified as an "OS" ...) are committed to FOSS? It's not as if the non-free stuff floats by on its own and lands in a repo; this requires maintenance and policy. Not only are you misleading in this way, but your facts are wrong about gNewSense. Hundreds of hours of license auditing (results publicly recorded on wiki.gnewsense.org) have resulted in removal of non-free files beyond a mere shell script. People do not make that kind of tedious, thankless effort on a whim. The files are removed immediately and affected equipment stops working immediately (due to daily updates). Significantly different experience than Ubuntu, and gNewSense is just starting--they aim to audit every file of every package. Moreover, if "potential" were so trivial, we would not have gNewSense, Fedora, BLAG, Ututo, etc. Indeed, the "enterprise" versus "community" thing seems to be a growing trend.

Do you think the average user would identify non-free elements (whether "default" or "readily available") any less with "Linux" than free elements? What else would they see it as other than things that are more or less convenient to install? Adobe Flash is an important, ubiquitous example that I have should have mentioned.

Finally, consider business contexts. Those users also refer to "Linux", of course. Would they typically be any less dependent on non-free software on "Linux" than "consumers"? - Freed42 (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be part of a disagreement about how carefully one should verify claims that stuff is allowed to be distributable under the GPL rather than a consensus agreement in the Linux community. See [2] for Debian's take on the current status. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This old chestnut again. Enterprise Linux users typically pay people to work on the mainline kernel because it is vastly more economical in the long run than keeping their own proprietary bits out-of-tree as "value added" code. This has been the case for years. People who repeat the nonsense theory that the term "Linux" is promoted by companies who have something to gain by minimising the free software aspect of the OS typically don't know what they're talking about, and the FSF is sensible enough not to touch this argument with a bargepole as far as I can see.

As for your other points: firstly, of the three major distros at this point (Fedora and OpenSUSE: Xandros etc. certainly exist, but their share of the market is simply nonexistent next to the big three) two (Fedora and Ubuntu) use the "no unfree software by default" model now and the third is likely to go that way. Distro proliferation has little to be with ideology and a lot to do with how easy Canonical and Red Hat have made it to fork Ubuntu and Fedora. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular dispute with the observations that you make here. I should emphasize, however, that unless I specifically refer to the Linux kernel, the points I make are in the context of the subject of this talk page, the OS (ill-defined) called "Linux". E.g., it would probably be hard for me to direct most of my criticism at the activity around the kernel specifically, and if I did, it would probably involve the embedded market. The ambiguity around "Linux" and the ensuing problems are so predictable that I think I will just let this rest for now. Freed42 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)