Talk:Linux

Proposed name change

GNU/Linux is a way better name, since it deals with both kernel and userland fairly. Naming the whole OS after the kernel is incorrect. The true correct name is GNU/Linux, only, and Stallman is right about it. The GNU project has a right for their abbreviation to be included into the name. We should not and we do not care how the name is usually used in speech, here we must care only about correct names, even if no one uses them. No compromises could be made. 46.73.23.209 (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I second this. The operating system is GNU/Linux; Linux is a monolithic kernel. I vote either for a name change, or preferably, a complete reorganization of the material (note monolithic above).--John Bessa (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose From the top link (summary of archives): "Can we rename this page to GNU/Linux? No, the vast majority of people and companies call it Linux, and we already mention the alternate name in the lead and its own subsection." If you have new arguments bring them forth, otherwise is useless to recycle arguments that were made over and over on archives and didn't convince the majority. man with one red shoe 21:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been discussed at length. Both consensus and common usage are in favor of Linux. The references overwhelmingly call it Linux, and to call it otherwise is against Wikipedia's NPOV. No authority exists to officially name operating systems using some GNU code, we can only reflect with the references show. The references, vendors, media, and public usage overwhelmingly supports Linux over GNU/Linux. To rename the article to GNU/Linux is to give undue weight to a minority opinion. - SudoGhost™ 21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

the name GNU/Linux is not an opinion, it is the exact definition. calling it Linux is like calling a computer "graphics card" or "hard drive". regardless of my opinion on the name, the reason for choosing one just because everyone uses it, is just horrible. if a lot of people and the media would call the sky, "s84wvnct9e84znf2" would you change that too? and why is the opinion of someone such an important factor (not only here, but on the wikipedia in general), if correctness and/or facts clearly support one side? Stultitiam debello (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

GNU/Linux is the "exact definition" according to only one group of people. Naming the article GNU/Linux would be a violation of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT. Especially as there is no body set forth the determine the "correct" name of Linux, there cannot possibly be a "this is right, this is wrong" answer. We can only go by what we have available. There are many articles that state things I disagree with, but one must take care to avoid a conflict of interest, where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. - SudoGhost™ 09:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

GNU/Linux is the way Richard Stallman portrays it, but since I was around using GNU when Linux was developed, I personally prefer Linux/GNU. Only the FSF and the GNU people use it. The open source people say Linux, as well as Linus, and of course the marketers all prefer to ignore the contribution of the GNU project, whereas Richard Stallman, prefers it in chronological order. I prefer it in functional order, like a specification. GNU/Linux IS an opinion, and its the FSF and Richard Stallman's opinion.

The main supporting user space system tools? Oh, sorry, only a small part of the Kernel, according to maintainers is written in Assembly/Machine code, where as the bulk of the OS is written to compile in GCC. So, actually, GCC is a system level development tool, as well as a user space development tool. ( and a Kernel development tool also ). Can you please define user space? like in wikispace user space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.39.145.54 (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

thank you for your answer. i never looked at it that way.Stultitiam debello (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Linux can also be compiled with Clang and maybe other compilers. It's coded in 'GNU C' but other compilers support those same extensions. strcat (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Who are you? and what do you mean 'I was around.?". I agree with the term UNIX-Variant, since that was the way that UNIXs were classified ( With the important exception of Pyrmid systems, which were almost universally agreed as hacks ), decades ago. Linux's are classified by distributions. UNIX has a implied distinction of portability, where as Mac OS X is not portable. Kernel hackers traditionally programmed in assembly, and had a development domain of their own, GCC Changed that with the ability to assemble code. so that Kernel hackers and system developers as well as application developers could all use the same tools. User land was the domain of application users, like Web developers. So someone who developed GUIs was using system development tools, while the GUI users were user land users. its a subtle distinction. I would say this incorporating both distinctions...

"Linux is both a kernel and a set of operating systems distributions derived from Minix, designed to be unix like and use open source development tools from the GNU project.

[ Note: can someone update the graphic to show Linus's original intent? You have read his post no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.88.72.23 (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Attempts to paste "GNU" onto the name "Linux" represent an agenda by a minority to assert Richard Stallman's personal sense of ownership of this technology and they completely fail WP:NPOV. The issue has been talked to death already and there's no evidence that anything has changed. Msnicki (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• • So what if they are a minority? It is ridiculous to suggest Stallman wants to claim ownership over any software - do you know who the man is? GNU was the official name before it was even completed and was changed to "GNU/Linux" out of respect to Linus. The GNU should not be dropped. It is also worth noting that people often confuse the OS for the kernel and this manifests itself into incorrect wiki entries. Just earlier I had to correct an article for the (terrible) film Swordfish which outright stated that Linus 'created the Linux operating system.'. MeatyDoughnut (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure of where you got this information, because it conflicts with what is in the sources. According to the FSF (and of course rms), GNU is an operating system using HURD as the kernel.[1] The FSF defines GNU/Linux as an operating system using the Linux kernel and the GNU userland/toolchain (gcc, glibc, gettext, the command-line utilities, etc.).

This article is about operating systems using the Linux kernel and any userland. For example, embedded distributions like μClinux and the distributions based on it which use uClibc and BusyBox, not glibc and the GNU coreutils. Android (operating system) does not use any GNU components/libraries (it uses the Bionic C library and a completely different userland). Richard Stallman and the FSF acknowledge that most people and almost all of the media use the "Linux" naming and they definitely do not want us to incorrectly refer to systems like Android as GNU/Linux. Please read the FSF FAQ on GNU/Linux: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html. The OS was originally referred to as "Linux" with GNU/Linux or terms like Linux/GNU/X being used later to give credit to more of those who were involved. In a way, Linus did create "Linux" because he put together the first "Linux distribution" by porting the GNU userland to work with his kernel.[2] He obviously didn't code most of the original operating system (gcc and glibc were far larger than the kernel back then, but the proliferation of drivers has changed that) and no one here is claiming that (in fact, he's now coded less than 1% of the kernel itself).

This article exists because almost all of the media and other sources use the terms "Linux" and "Linux distribution" this way. I think the naming is quite stupid and the OSes should be referred to simply as "Arch", "Ubuntu", etc. (like the BSDs), but that is my POV, and almost all the of the sources use this naming (see Wikipedia:Article titles for the policy).

strcat (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying the operating system that is known as 'GNU' does not use Linux as it's kernel. That is a seperate thing.

When the project to write a free OS was started the name was already agreed upon (GNU). Therefore any contribution to this project would be a contribution to the GNU operating system. When Linus Torvlads contributed Linux, he contributed it to the GNU operating system. To give credit for supplying an essential part of the OS the name of 'GNU' was changed to 'GNU/Linux'. Another reason for the change is that Linux was not supposed to be the GNU kernel so it would be best to make a distinction between the two.

I am aware that people referred to the OS as 'Linux' but this was not an official name and they were wrong to do so. The error continues today. It was wrong then and it is still wrong today.

My main problem with this article is that is specifically refers to Linux as an operating when it is not. Linux is a kernel and there is no such thing as an operating system that is a distribution of 'Linux'. This is simply wrong and should be changed. MeatyDoughnut (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the terms operating system and distribution. The operating system is only whatever runs in kernel mode, essentially, the kernel itself + the device drivers. Everything else running in user mode is not part of the operating system but would be part of a distribution. A distribution is the operating system plus any toolchain and all the applications. Virtually (entirely?) all of the GNU code is application code. It's often part of a distribution but it's not part of the operating system. Yes, Stallman did envision a whole OS distribution, which he called GNU. But he never got around to creating the OS part because Torvalds beat him to it and called it Linux. Msnicki (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Msnicki, although we agree on the article naming, an unsubstantiated personal attack on someone admired by the people you are debating with is not going to them see things from your point of view. strcat (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that my comments are either unsubstantiated or that they constitute a personal attack. It's a known fact that Stallman is an activist who came up with the name GNU and started FSF. He has made himself a public figure. It's also a known fact that Stallman and FSF wish everyone would refer to Linux as GNU/Linux. I submit that's an ownership claim of sorts: It's a claim that FSF and GNU should share recognition, that any time we talk about Linux, we should be sure to give GNU credit. And that's just silly. I give them credit for their toolchain and applications. But they did not create the Linux OS. Stallman had plans to create an OS but Torvalds beat him to it. Msnicki (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. 'GNU/Linux' may be the correct term for a subset of Linux-based OSes, but it is not accurate for all of them. The article has significant coverage of Linux-based operating systems that don't make use of the GNU toolchain/userland/libc such as Android, WebOS and other embedded Linux variants. strcat (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per strcat, and per Talk:Linux/Name#Requested_move_-_October_2008. It should be noted that Linux and GNU and GNU/Linux are different things. GNU/Linux is GNU built upon Linux, in the same way it is built upon other kernels as well. The current article reflects this to some extent, but the general situation on Wikipedia is to make no clear distinction between kernels, operating systems and graphical user interfaces, which is a pity. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Hear me out, it going to take your time but listen (sorry about layout, dont know how to set it other than in one line). Monolithic kernel == operating system. . Just forget about brands (GNU and Linux) and marketing (GNU/Linux, Windows etc) and think about technology and how it has been developed since 1960's when first operating systems were developed and for what purpose the operating system has for computer and so worth to the user. Every program, needs a operating system. Every library, needs a operating system. GNU does not offer anything else than programs and libraries and all of them needs a operating system to operate them. GNU/Linux is in conflict itself technically. It is nice propaganda what has gained lots of popularity among users has people want to believe that GNU project has done so much more that it needs recognition. People can talk about cars and cars engines without such feelings. They can separate the engine from the car itself and understands the engines purpose to exist. People even understands that they can change the car engine to another one, still having same car with different engine. Do you quess where the saying "Linux allows you to pop-up the hood and look what its made of?" means? It does not mean that you can open a command line or you can see a web browser or bash source code. It means that you can download whole operating system source code from kernel.org and check how it works and you can even switch parts or "fix it". Just like car engine you can fix. The operating system is like car engine. It does nothing alone than just runs. You do not get electricity from it without using a other motor with it. Alone car engine just generates from gasoline/diesel a physical motion what can be used with other technologies like gears to generate different kind things. Even a wheel is very important thing for a car, as without wheels, car does not move. But everyone can see that wheels do not belong to the car engine. Even a brakes has very important feature that they allows car to stop. But everyone can see brakes do not belong to wheels or engine. Software system is like a car. It is full of different technologies, different products (car stereo from one company and USB phone charger from someone else). Together they all build a product what can be sold. Some parts are not needed for the car (to transfer people and goods) but they are more like a luxuries (like car stereo) in it. Some parts belongs to the car (brakes, wheels, engine etc) but still them being totally different technologies. We can not touch software. We can not understand it so easily as we can understand car engine and wheels. But even then, if we start studying the computer technology, we can find out what does what. Most IT amateurs and professionals knows what CPU is and what it does. Many does not know difference between CPU Socket and CPU. Or CPU and CPU heatsink, but they can understand it when they see it in their hands. With software, thing is totally different. As we can not see anything when computer runs. We don't have fans or any physical object doing something. We have only a visual presentation on the screen. And we believe what we see (Saying, seeing is believing). When a marketing person shows us a computer and on the screen there is image of nice wallpaper and few windows and icons on desktop, all in good looking way. And marketing person says "This computer comes with Windows operating system", we think that what we see on the screen, is the Windows operating system. At that point, we have been fooled. Everything what we saw, ain't even close what the operating system is. What we saw, was bunch of applications, picture, graphical icons and a software what draws all that to the screen. The operating system is always behind everything. It does not have a user interface, it does not play music or play videos. All what it does, is that it operates the hardware, takes input and sends output and manages every process and allocates hardware resources when and how needed. It does not care what process does, it just does what the process asks and makes sure does that process have permissions to do so. Operating system is responsible to get everything in computer to work. When computer with Linux starts, first thing what happens is the hardware starts, the computer firmware (BIOS/UEFI) gets loaded and does basic checks, then it search as set, the bootloader. The bootloader then does what it has been configured, search a operating system image, loads it, executes it and operating system takes control of everything. It does self check, checks hardware and then starts first process, INIT. And then INIT starts reading its configurations and gives orders to Linux to start the programs. At the end, user sees on the screen a login screen or a desktop and clicks few icons and reads text on webpage... thinking using a operating system. But not knowing operating system has never been available to be used directly. The operating system is managing and operating all the hardware and software in the computer. Every process, every bit, every disk head, memory block is under control of operating system. And GNU has NOTHING to do with the Linux operating system. There is no single GNU program or software what belongs to Linux operating system. Bash, GCC, Glibc and all other GNU softwares are just programs and libraries what all needs operating system. Not even bootloader is part of the OS. Bootloader is like starting motor in car engine. Its only purpose is to load and start the operating system. Just like starting motor only job is to start the gasoline engine. GNU project has own operating system called HURD. HURD ain't kernel. RMS wants you to believe that HURD is kernel as Linux is. But HURD is full operating system. HURD is Server-Client architecture operating system, not Monolithic. HURD has a microkernel called Mach. HURD is operating system what is set of microkernel and servers. That group is the HURD. And that is the reason why HURD has name of it. It is a bunch of OS servers controlled by Mach microkernel. And monolithic and server-client operating systems operate totally different. And one mistake what most people do as they dont know, is that they mix kernel and microkernel as same thing. And people do not even care what microkernel means than it would be just "smaller kernel" and not "huge and big as monolithic". As people do not know the history of operating systems and the history of naming. As before term "operating system" existed, the terms "kernel", "core", "master program", "controller" etc, were used and "Kernel" was most used. But that was on the time when only a monolithic architecture existed. Then kernels grow bigger and they came more complex to maintain and develop as hardware technology evolved that we had more RAM and more disk space to be allocated. Kernels were not just tens of thousands lines of code but hundreds or even million. The stability suffered as more lines meant more errors and single error crash the whole kernel and every program what it operated. Then someone got idea, "we slice the kernel to multiple parts and isolate the parts from each other so if one crash, others continue". Every "part" had different tasks of the kernel. One part was responsible for filesystems, other responsible to network protocols (TCP/IP, UDP and other low level networking, not HTTP etc high level protocols what all use low level protocols) and some responsible for printer and some for floppy disk and so on. Every different function of the kernel was separated as own "part". The Server-Client architecture was born. But the problem was that term "kernel" did not anymore fit as one of the "parts" in Server-Client architecture was responsible to operate all other "parts". Just like on kernel, the code what was responsible to operate all other functions, it was located in that "part". And it got term "microkernel". It was like kernel is were programs, but only for those "parts", its size was just few hundred or few thousand line of code. It was most important "part" of them all. Then there was a need for a new term what engineers could use when talking from kernel and this bunch of "parts". And the term "operating system" was token in use. As after all, monolithic and server-client architectures were complex systems what operated the hardware and software. It fitted to both architectures by their purpose. Then later, people started to talk microkernels as kernels because laziness and talking about "kernel is most important part of the operating system" came common because all new operating systems were Server-Client by architecture, not monolithics. Almost every operating system engineer tough that Monolithic architecture will die. Unix was dying, Apple and Microsoft was conquering desktops and servers. And then one 21 year old kid from Finland wrote own program for different purpose what later became operating system, and then he went and wrote the famous post to Minix newsgroup that he has a own operating system what is free (with his own license) and works only with i386. Soon Linus got to newsgroup fight with famous OS engineer Andrew Tannenbaum who wrote how monolithic architecture to operating system is obsolete and Server-Client architecture is the future. Both stand behind their opinions. After few years Linux birth it had won most of the GNU project OS engineers. RMS got angry about that because GNU project own operating system HURD lost its development speed because Linux. So RMS started a personal quest to keep GNU project a live because he was afraid that GNU would die. Linus used GCC to compile Linux, Linus ported the glibc to work on Linux so most of the GNU programs worked. It was imago fight for RMS. So after few years when Linux was started, he started to demand it will be called as GNU/Linux. The fight shared camps and went even so far that silently some GNU fans changed uname program listings against Unix standards and even added a -o option there, they renamed "operating system" to "kernel" and the new -o option was renamed as "operating system". All standard uname programs prints operating system name while GNU version of uname prints "kernel" and when using a -o option, it prints "GNU/Linux". GNU project went so far, that they fabricated the Unix standards. They started to talk about HURD being a kernel (kernel means operating system) but in the meaning of kernel as a microkernel, they do not talk about Mach microkernel what is used in HURD. They demand that every operating system is named with GNU/ prefix if it is compiled with GCC or rans any GNU project software like GCC, GlibC, Bash and so on. The whole GNU/Linux vs Linux is fight about faith. It is like Christians at years 1099-1271 against everyone. There is no technical or any scientific reason why GNU/Linux would be correct. Contrary, technology, computer science and even history proofs totally otherwise that Linux kernel is the operating system alone. Just forget the marketing, forget the opinions. Study the computer history, study the computer science how computer actually works. Start with questions "what I need to get gcc working" or "what I need to get data stored to HDD". Questions like what purposes every software has are important as well. Like what purpose is with glibc to C# or Java programs or when user plugs USB device to USB-port, what technically really happens. What is program? What is command? How many does know that when person types to bash (or any other shell) a "ls -la | grep foobar" those ain't commands but programs with options? ls is program as is grep. Those are two programs and not commands. Bash does have own commands, what are not programs, but they need to be known separately what they are. User can even check where programs are locaed with whereis program. like typing "whereis ls" or "whereis alias". You see, alias ain't program but it is bash command and feature. . Every computer user is victim of marketing propaganda. Came it from GNU or came it from Microsoft or Apple or any Linux distributor. They all want to sell their own product. They need to separate from the mass. The fight is going on graphical and application level, but they talk about operating systems and security, while they don't reality even talk about that. There never was a GNU/Linux operating system and there never is going to be a GNU/Linux. And do not veto to public opinion. As 99% of the public does not understand the computers. They are victims of marketing propaganda and their opinions or believes do not proof anything. That is like going to ask from 5 year old kid that does Einstein E=mc² still holds today? The public opinion is not the one what rules how computer technology works and what wikipedia or any encyclopedia should have. In scientific article (like article what Linux is), the science is the one what rules that, not opinions. Golftheman (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

GNU project is a main contributor in "Linux" operating system

An average "Linux" Distro has more GNU software than any other pool of software under a single project. Alaukikyo (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm right, however, GNU is not the writer of the core OS. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be tediously revisiting Richard Stallman's agenda that the word "Linux" should never appear unless "GNU" is somehow pasted onto it, preferably always as the prefix (and better still, in larger type, I suppose.) It's an unnecessary ownership claim that long been settled by consensus here on Wikipedia. Stallman (and anyone else) is free to proclaim that the whole thing was his idea but we're not here to speak in his voice. As an open source project with many contributors, to the extent anyone is singled out for credit, that simply has to be Torvalds for his initial authorship of the Linux OS kernel, which is at the core of what this article is about. There are a lot of Linux boxes out there being used by people who have no idea it comes with gcc, bash and gawk. Pasting GNU in front of Torvalds's name in the credits for the OS is just silly. Msnicki (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A kernel is useless without the rest of the software that makes a computer useful. The first Linux distros were Linus' kernel and GNU software for the rest of it. Linus wrote his kernel, because it was the missing piece of a GNU complete system - the only piece that the GNU project was still working on. The consensus here on Wikipedia that Msnicki claims to exist does not. Please argue based on facts and history, and not your unfounded personal beliefs. Stallman argues for the joint name for the whole system, not the OS kernel. He always credits Linus for that. Part of the problem here is that the phrase operating system is murky - does it mean the kernel or the whole computing system? Perhaps what is needed is clearing that distinction up, and stopping the use of a murky term. Core OS is another murky term. In this case is it's just Linus' kernel, or does it also included the C, C++, etc. system libraries that the GNU Project wrote? The kernel is useless without the libraries. Lentower (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think the term operating system is murky, maybe you should read the article. The OS is the part that runs below the application layer. Most of the GNU stuff runs at the application layer. Msnicki (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is what fraction of the code below the application layer is GNU code from system libraries, etc. The term operating system could be further disambiguated in this article and elsewhere on WP, probably being replaced by clearer language. It's yet another case, where specialists are writing for themselves instead of working towards the best way to explain things to the everyone on the planet. Lentower (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The answer is, very little. OS internal code tends to manipulate only OS-internal objects using OS-internal routines. You won't see a lot of calls to printf. Even C runtime library routines like malloc are usually replaced by OS-internal versions inside an OS. Msnicki (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sad that Msnicki has so little experience, assuming he is a system designer or programmer at all. I've been involved with the design of both Unix and non-Unix systems, both real-time and general purpose, for over 40 years. What he's said may be true in his experience, but it's not true in general. Lentower (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The joint system of GNU/Linux is not the topic of the article, and is a subset of the distributions covered here. Note that the GNU Project is heavily covered in History of Linux (and the summary history section here) as they should be.

Most distributions use a large amount of code written for/by the GNU Project - but the only common factor between all of them is the kernel so that is what is mentioned in the infobox. KDE, Qt, Firefox, Pango, Python, Perl, Freetype, FFmpeg, etc. are also key parts of many distributions but are also not common to all of them so they are not mentioned in the infobox. If you want to try to divide up effort by lines of code, hours of work, monetary investment or some metric like that, the Linux kernel is sure to dwarf everything else. I wouldn't be surprised if Red Hat and Intel have written more code than those working under the banner of the GNU Project but I don't see any reason why we should replace "Many" with our own POV views of who deserves credit for the accomplishments of the entire community.

See Linux#Embedded_devices for some examples of operating systems which do not use glibc (they may use uClibc, and Android uses Bionic), and use BusyBox in place of the GNU userland. There are also "desktop" distributions like stali which don't use much GNU project code but instead use for plan9/bsd userlands.

This page used to be a Good Article and we should concentrate on getting it back to that quality instead of wasting time bikeshedding. I'd like to point out that the person who started this topic has resorted to vandalism to push their POV on this topic.[3][4][5] -- strcat (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

strcat no, his edits were NOT vandalism, but a result of the lack of consensus among editors on this topic. Making charges like you do here, does not help improve consensus, or improve the article. Lentower (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I gave 3 links to what I consider to be vandalism: removal of all content from two templates used on both Linux kernel and this page. The templates are purely technical information (they just contain the current kernel version number). We will just have to agree to differ on whether the changes were made in good faith. strcat (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

strcat writes "If you want to try to divide up effort by lines of code, hours of work, monetary investment or some metric like that, the Linux kernel is sure to dwarf everything else." strcat is wrong. In system design, a major decision is how much functionality is placed in the kernel, and how much is in the system libraries. The decision when Unix was designed be Dennis and team at Bell Labs, was to minimize the amount in the kernel, and maximize the amount in the system libraries. All Unix derivatives that I am aware of continue this split. Application level programmers on Unix systems seldom directly use a kernel call, instead using system library calls. The code is hard to write and maintain regardless of which side of the line it's on. And most variants of Linux, and the bulk of Linus systems deployed, use system libraries written by the GNU Project. Lentower (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If this article is just about the Linux kernel, the attribution in the Infobox, is fine. If it is about the kernel and the system libraries, the GNU Project needs to be listed there. If it is about those and "userland", BSD, and perhaps others, need to be added as well. Otherwise, this article is not describing the subject as it is, but according to the personal biases of a set of editors. Lentower (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Len, on your user page, you identify yourself as "one of the founders as well as a founding member of the Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in 1985." Don't you think this conflict of interest could be getting in the way of a neutral point of view? I really don't know what other reason you might have for your earlier ad hominem argument, questioning whether I'm really a programmer. Who cares what I am. For all you know, I write compilers and diff utilities, too. But I'm anonymous and anyway, personal experience is irrelevant. Msnicki (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Msnicki: I raised two issues, you raised a third. Len-1) You made a technical statement of fact that is wrong. Len-2) I speculated on why you may have written a falsehood. You're right, that speculation isn't all that relevant. You have my apology for the fact I wasn't clearer that I was speculating about why you were writing falshoods. It could be based on bad writing here on WP, or almost anything. Comment But that you are making false statements, in the discussion about an article, is what's important. Please stick to the facts. Msnicki-1} I'm careful about COI issues. Have you made any effort here to WP:AGF? I'm not the only person here, or wider, who sees that the way this article is written mis-represents the subject. We owe our readers better. Lentower (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm right. From Malloc#In-kernel: "Operating system kernels need to allocate memory just as application programs do. The implementation of malloc within a kernel often differs significantly from the implementations used by C libraries, however. ... In Linux and Unix kmalloc and kfree provide the functionality of malloc and free in the kernel." Msnicki (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Guess the best we can do is agree to disagree. Other editors will form an opinion or not. It really takes several graduate level computer science courses, or equivalent work with experienced designers. And sigh, the Malloc article you link to has WP:OR issues, poor citations, the need for better and more citations, too much dependence on code examples, etc. And touches on a tiny corner of the issue without even beginning to understand it. Just read Malloc, and did some low-level wiki-gnoming on the way. Lentower (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The infobox lists the developers as "Many" and the userland as "Various". Can you please elaborate on why that is biased? Linus is just listed as holding the trademark on the term "Linux". Alaukikyo removed that text from the article without an edit summary or any discussion, so I reverted it. That seems to be the cause of this whole kerfuffle, so I think we should talk about the real issue. Alaukikyo also made this edit, which was also reverted because there are far too many major contributors to list them all, and not all distributions use glibc and the GNU userland, making it untrue for some of them. What do you propose we do with the section on Embedded Linux (which includes Android and webOS)? strcat (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

strcat The last three paragraphs include the more direct answers to your questions.

The central question is what's best for all readers of Wikipedia. How to get the core of Linux across to all readers, and leave the details to be found elsewhere (with citations, externals links, (both carefully chosen) and search engines we aren't leaving our readers hanging). This is hard for most editors, because most of us contribute to articles we know a lot about, and topics we care about. And too many editors want to be cheerleaders and supporters of their topics first, instead of providing what the reader deserves from Wikipedia.

One source of guidance on this specific question, is what is done with this Infobox in other articles. I just looked at a dozen or so, and found that the OS Infobox is either not used at all, or the parameters being discussed here aren't included at all. The later points out, that just because a template has a parameter, doesn't mean it has to be filled in. The choice of which parameters to leave empty is editing. This avoids bloat, as well as increasing the quality and the information density per word. Another point is the more wider an OS is used, the fewer parameters need to be included in the Infobox. Quality editing and writing involve careful choice and is hard.

As a reader of Wikipedia, what I want is an article, that is tightly written and concentrates on the big picture. This includes how the topic connects to the rest of what is known, and how the topic fits into history and the world.

This article does too little of that, and too much of trying to track the current state, and the tiny twists and turns of recent development.

This is why, if this articles lists developers at all, the originals developers of Linus Torvalds and the GNU project are notable. I wish the OS Infobox has an "|Original developer" parameter. Linus Torvalds would not have written the kernel, if the GNU Project hadn't had the rest of the Core OS ready. How Linux happened and why is of broad interest. (The trademark doesn't need to be in the Infobox at all - I'm about to put it in the Table of Contents.)

But what best for the general reader is to delete: "|developer=", "|marketing target=", "|ui=", "|userland=", "|prog language=", and probably "|programmed in=". And possibly others. Too much detail for the general reader. Along with similar tightening in the article's text. I'll let this change wait until there is an opportunity for research and discussion by others.

And as I wrote earlier, very careful use of murky terms and phases with too many meanings. Lentower (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A few things to clear up:

1. "The joint system of GNU/Linux" is precisely what this article is about. Most people call that system Linux. The Free Software Foundation and a relatively small part of the extended fanbase (along with anyone who wishes to cooperate with the FSF, as they refuse to cooperate with those who don't use their terminology) uses the FSF's ex-post-facto rebranding, but in the interests of NPOV we are obliged not to treat this minority opinion as factual.
2. How much of a given distribution's code is © FSF is irrelevant. We use names based on how common they are rather than how accurate they are, so even if one were to take the FSF's position on "accurate naming" there's still no ground to refer to the subject as "GNU/Linux" here.
3. The next time Alaukikyo (talk · contribs) flogs this particular WP:DEADHORSE he'll be reported for edit warring. This lame POV-pushing is ineffective. Stop it.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: remove kernel version number

{{edit semi-protected}} It seems a bit hypocritical, if you don't mind me saying, to claim that "Linux" refers to any operating system environment using the Linux Kernel, but then to claim that "version" of any Linux operating system environment is the version of the Kernel itself. That belongs in the Linux Kernel article, not here; the two ideas are mutually exclusive. Zbuhman (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they are "mutually exclusive" but I would remove such detail that's not needed here if I know how, hope other editor will jump in... man with one red shoe 00:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what edit is being requested; could we get more specific about that? Also, I'm thinking that Zbuhman might be able to edit this article by now. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - so, please re-state, and re-request (if applicable). Thanks,  Chzz  ►  07:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me do the request then, remove the Linux kernel version from infobox. Clear enough? man with one red shoe 14:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, I'm obviously not very experienced with this sort of thing. Zbuhman (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Linux kernel is the thing that makes it Linux, not just a bunch GNU tools running on Windows or something else. We commonly identify the latest release in articles describing software products and the kernel version is the most meaningful way of doing that here. The infobox makes clear that this applies only to the kernel, not anything else. Msnicki (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Reading the Wikipedia article on what an "operating system" actually is, is in fact being defined there as simply a "set of programs"; how is that any different from "a bunch of GNU tools". And again, why do we have an infobox talking about "The Kernel" in an article that is, as you said, not about "The Kernel". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbuhman (talk • contribs) 08:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty clearly not what I said. If you'd like to argue with my points, it'd be helpful if it was more apparent you understood them. Msnicki (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support It's too much detail that's not needed in this article, what does the kernel version have to do with the article? The article is about the generic Linux OS, it needs no version number since there's no version number for the OS, various distributions that do make the full OS have their specific versions Ubuntu 11.10, Fedora 14, and so on. Since this is about the generic OS a specific version of the kernel or other parts of the system are not needed to be specified in the Infobox, especially that no distribution runs on the most recent kernel. I would also claim that more relevant for users is the version of the desktop environment, whether they run GNOME 3 or 2.x or KDE 3.5.x or KDE 4.x than the kernel version. -- man with one red shoe 22:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The Linux operating system has version number. Latest is 3.1.4. You can find OS version numbers from kernel.org or using a uname program to give it to you with parameter -r. But the GNU uname has falsefied the IEEE standard to falsify the truth of Linux operating system (and same time falsefied technical side of other OS's as well). Check more from here (what has been countered later back to GNU propaganda: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uname&oldid=277002719 The operating system version is the kernel version when it is about monolithic operating system like what Linux is. If the operating system is Server-Client by architecture, then it has separate version number than what the microkernel or the servers has. There are two OS architectures and it is enough to cause misunderstanding for most of the tech people who do not understand operating system technology. Golftheman (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose* Any Linux operating system is primarily defined by its kernel, and I don't see any particular reason to not include the kernel version no matter how insignificant the version has become for most aspects of Linux operations or programming. In any case, the kernel version number is a noteworthy milestone identifier in Linux history. Kbrose (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Primarily"? To the contrary, a Linux operating system is in fact primarily defined by the version number assigned to it by (what is usually) the distribution packagers. Zbuhman (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose We settled this ages ago by prefixing the LSR/LPR subtemplate output with Kernel. Readers actually expect to find the Linux kernel version number in the Linux article as the name Linux is considered to be synonymous with the Linux kernel itself. The Linux kernel is also obviously an integral part of a Linux distribution and this article fills the gaps between the Linux kernel and Linux distribution articles.

  I could be off the mark, but I also find this request by User:Zbuhman just a little suspicious. The account has a creation date of 7 March 2011 with the account's first edit only occurring 7 months later on 15 October 2011 and this edit request being made on 21 October 2011. I think some of this is a little too "coincidental" given that I just created this subpage in my userspace on 20 October 2011, which happens to link to some of the May 2009 discussions... Given the background, perhaps a SPI is in order? --Tothwolf (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  • That discussion was never resolved. Why is a template clearly talking about "The Kernel" being placed in an article about "Linux"? As for the rest of your "argument"; I have no idea where that came from, or, more importantly, why that's relevant. Zbuhman (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Your question asking why the kernel version number is useful has been answered several times and I think there's a consensus. I don't think the problem is that you didn't get a good answer. I think the problem is that you just don't like it. Msnicki (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

But it's not useful; one could take an ancient userland and toss the absolute latest kernel in there; there is not necessarily any relationship between the version of the kernel and the version of the rest of the software present in the operating system. Zbuhman (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: new definition what is Linux

Hello all

I've been thinking about the term "Linux" and its definition provided by Wikipedia. I see the current definition is very limited and it pays too much attention on details like for instance "Unix-like computer operating system" or "free and open source software development and distribution". Also statements referring to operation system kernel in the beginning of the article are perhaps little confusing. Somehow it would be better for Linux to understand it as a technological enabler rather than only operating system.

Therefore I would like to connect more general point of view than the current technologically orientated definition. The aim is increase the popularity of Linux, one aim to reach this is provide less technical definition for broader audience.

Based on those reasons, I suggest following for defining Linux:

Linux is a free and publicly available technology which can be used on digital devices. Linux-technology based on collaborative development model which guarantees that it is not dominated by any single author like commercially licensed technologies. The immaterial rights in the Linux technology allows to install, use, edit, copy and distribute the technology without any commercial terms or restrictions.

It would like to stress the words publicly available technology since it is more than just the kernel (kernel is the form of technology). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryytuo (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's an operating system, not some kind of vague "technology". What's there represents a fought-over consensus. Msnicki (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Msnicki, its an operating system and you dont mention that in the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beefcake6412 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose technology it's way too vague (plumbing is technology too...) man with one red shoe 14:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

According to proposed definition, it is not intended to remove mention "kernel". Linux is not operating system, for instance Ubuntu, Debian or Solaris are operating systems. Operating system is larger entity than kernel, which is restricted comparing to operating system. For instance, Windows is product based proprietary technology, where the product is license and the role of technology is Windows and its variants. Talking about Linux, we can see it as free technology where Linux itself is not a product. Linux-products are products which uses technology called Linux. The current definition is not wrong, but it is very limited. Therefore I suggest to expand the current definition by using technological point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryytuo (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Linux is exactly a kernel that requires exactly a computer to run. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If "Linux" referred to a kernel and only a kernel, this article would not exist, since we already have Linux kernel. That being said, I oppose the proposed "Linux is a technology" definition, which seems inexcusably vague to me. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The starting point for the opinion is that Ubuntu, Fedora and other distributions are the operating systems. That is wrong conclusion and is based to marketing, not computer science. The Linux is Linux kernel. Nothing else is Linux or belongs to Linux. When someone say "Linux" it should mean only Linux what is available from kernel.org site. Linux is not microkernel, it is a monolithic kernel. A monolithic kernel is original architecture for operating system and still used today, as even Linux existing proofs it. Linux has never meant a whole distribution. People who not know what Linux is, use it that way but they are victims of marketing and wrong conclusions. Linux kernel is the operating system. Nothing else belongs to that operating system, not from GNU or any other party. This article is about distributions. A distribution is software system what is distributed. The term "distribution" comes from history where first people to get a open source operating system (operating systems and software were at start open and free, until they were closed) and they were distributed on magnetic and paper tapes. A distribution was a single tape what had operating system and/or programs on it. And later a with Linux, like with BSD's, the user otherwise should have download all the source codes, download a compiler. Compile the software and then install it. Usually it meant, they needed a another computer with working software system and development platform to do so to get their new computer working. So idea to distributions came too that user should not need to hunt every software by themselfs, but they can just get a package what has all softwares in it. And those different software systems were distributed. Linux operating system is wanted software. But no one does anything just with the operating system as the programs are the ones what does the job for the user, but programs needs operating system to work. So they are distributed together. Different people need different programs. So there are different distributions from what to choose. Some distributions can be almost ready as that, some needs some tweaks and customisation but it is about the user, is she or he a user what distributors are targeting for. The Linux distribution article should only touch about distributions what use Linux as its operating system. If distributions would not exist, we would not need this article. And even that we have Linux operating system, it does not make distribution article obsolete because distribution and operating system are two different things. Operating system is technology and distribution is more like habit and idea how to collect other softwares what are ported to that operating system and how they have made work together and how that all has finished as final product under own brand. Golftheman (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Penguin as a mascot

Where did it come from? Why a penguin? Perhaps the article could also address this, as it does not mention it at the moment. Cheers. Pikolas (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

...remarkable. I'd always thought this article contained a small section on Tux. This is indeed an omission, and a small section on the mascot should be included. (The short answer is that Larry Ewing drew him after being inspired by a comment on LKML, and Linus likes penguins.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)