Talk:Linux

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Good article failed, redundancy removal, edit warring over good old tux, suggestions from avillia, "3 steps" of a major edit, usual Linux/GNU controversies, questions of article direction.

Security section?

Would a security section be appropriate with maybe a link to [1] secunia.com Linux kernel vulnerabilities? I noticed here and also on the Linux Distribution comparison this information isn't displayed. It would be nice to see that information in both places, as security is one of the reasons given near the start of the article for people migrating. ToPreventAnon 18:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a link to security vulnerabilities makes much sense, but a section about security is appropriate. - Centrx 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Would a balanced article contain both the strengths (e.g. restricted user access by default) and the weaknesses (number of issues and or outstanding issues) of a particular security model? ToPreventAnon 14:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The number of outstanding vulnerabilities is only peripherally related to the user model in that vulnerabilities may not be exploitable should the compromised system have limited rights. In general, adding links to open bugs doesn't make for better articles: it's just news, as lists quickly get out of date.

The reason security is brought up when switching is because when found, the licencing model allows issues to be fixed more quickly. It isn't because of a head-count of open bugs. Chris Cunningham 14:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed the user model was just an example of one of the strengths, there are numerous others. So considering that bugs are just news would that make this [2] just a news article? Perhaps a reference to a bugs list would be out of place in the Linux section like you suggest, but is valid in an operating systems comparison list. Strangely the Linux distros comparison article has this information omitted, but I digress.

"the licensing model allows issues to be fixed more quickly" in theory yes, that is one of the beauties of the Open source model.

I am glad that people are in agreement that a security section would be both useful and informative. You've talked me round I think open bugs list would be out of place now; I maintain that an objective strengths and weaknesses examination is important for neutrality.ToPreventAnon 16:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

About those comparison pages: Lists are in a different class from articles; in general I do not think they are strictly appropriate for a straightforward encyclopedia but they remain in their own pages, not interfering with other articles, and user contributions may not be zero-sum, the people who edit them cannot simply be "re-assigned" to work on articles. In particular, a user reading one of these comparison tables has already chosen to wade through superficial statistics and data points. Still, the numbers are meaningless in themselves. - Centrx 06:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro sentence

This pointless nitpicking isn't productive. "Open Source" has basically lost its strict original definition now, which is why it's being incorporated into the phrase "open source development". I'm reverting the recent change. Chris Cunningham 12:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Stupid, stupid, stupid, childish, childish, childish, can you all please give up this revert war, nobody really cares if the paragraph starts with "open source" or with "free software" or which one is capitalized.AdrianTM 13:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents: Strictly speaking, Linux is the kernel. The development process behind it is, in practice, Open Source. It is also free, but that's besides the point. Rather than arguing about which should be listed first, maybe an entire rewording is in order. Like this: "The Linux operating system, also known as GNU/Linux, is an alternative operating system that both influences and is influenced by the open source movement. Unlike proprietary operating systems such as Windows or Mac OS, its underlying source code, with few exceptions is available to the public for anyone to freely use, modify and redistribute. The operating system is available in a number of configurations known as distributions, each maintained by a separate party. It is most often available free to anyone though some distributions offer service contracts at a nominal fee." -- or something along those lines. I just think the intro in general is weak. Feel free to disagree. But to waste time debating which should be first (Open source vs. Free) is a waste of time. Switching the order does not enhance the article in any way. --Coplan 16:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

History subsections

Subsections like "Pronunciation" seem to have nothing to do with history... suggest move or rename :) RN 18:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but it does fit, and "Pronunciation" does not warrant its own full section. What is mostly given in that section is a history: The pronunciation of similar words in the language, and a past account by Mr. Torvalds of its pronunciation. It fits also because the rest of the article talks about Linux itself, as the computer software, whereas the history section is the place for ancillary and background information that is not so much relevant to computing itself, like the SCO litigation and the GNU issue.

The only other way I think it could be handled is by putting a "(pronounced BLAH)" in the intro, and then deleting everything else currently in the pronunciation section, which, being deletion of good information, is not warranted in this case. -- Centrx 21:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I expected the history flow from start to finish, instead it sort of restarts in each subsection. I guess it is alright for now - it is nice and to the point, that's for sure :). RN 20:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Biased

Although my knowledge of linux is not that good, i know this article is very biased. Especially critisism on usability can be added. It is true linux can be userfriendly for the basic users (when configured properly and applications are ready to use), but when a user wants to do a little setting tweaking in the system (modify some basic things, problem solving, etc) a reasonable windows user is totally lost.

You need to learn the tools, Linux is not Windows. Linux is easier to install and operate than Windows, I know because I've used Widows since Windows 3.1 (including professionally) and have been using Linux for only 2 years, I am better and more at home in Linux although I've been using it for shorter period. AdrianTM 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't write it myself, because i know to little about linux (only tried Ubuntu and was lost when my internet connection wasn't working and no way to solve the problem; windows would guide me to the window where to solve the problem). Linux still has a long way to go, this article only reflects the positive side.

if you have problems with Windows connection you are lost too, especially wireless, since what is going is hidden from user you have hard time to figure what is wrong, however you should realize that Wikipedia is not for pushing your point of views (read about it at Wikipedia:NPOV AdrianTM 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Simply having difficulty or being "lost" changing advanced settings does not constitute a usability problem that is any different from that with any other operating system. A reasonable Linux user is also totally lost when trying to "tweak" some settings in Windows. I, for one, find problem solving easier in Linux, and can solve problems that are by design unsolvable on a Windows system. - Centrx 02:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, not to mention that most of the "usability problems" usually reported have to do with installation, or we all know that Windows comes preinstalled on most of the systems, if you really want to compare Linux fairly: buy a preinstalled Linux system and see how it works -- you'll not complain then about configuring drivers. As about the common complain "it's hard to install programs" Linux is also easier than Windows: you have things like 1-click install or one command upgrade that upgrades all packages (try that in Windows). The only problem appears when you try to install Windows programs in Linux, but that's a little bit like using gas in a Diesel car... (not that's impossible, WINE and Cedega are getting pretty good in running Windows programs, Google for example released Picasa for Linux that runs in WINE) -- AdrianTM 06:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The user above is correct in that it has some unfortunate bias issues via ommision. Although there are a couple dubious statements such as

The high level of access granted to Linux's internals has led to Linux users traditionally tending to be more technologically oriented than users of Microsoft Windows and Mac OS, sometimes revelling in the tag of "hacker" or "geek".

Which runs into the causation vs. correlation issue - for example, one could argue that the reason people "tend to be more technologically oriented" is that linux is simply more difficult to use (that's assuming people "tend to be more technologically oriented" in the first place). Criticisms arn't always true either, they are by their nature often just opinions, albiet opinions of reliable sources :). RN 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Before easy-to-use front-ends and automated tools, this high configurability meant there were many options that could tweak every little thing. In some cases this meant that you had to specify every little setting, and over-all it meant it was more complex. So, yes, it's related, but the essential reason for technologically oriented users choosing Linux was the configurability. There were less difficulty barriers because the users were technologically adept, but that does not meant they would have chosen it simply because it was only a more difficult version with the same configurability as Windows. - Centrx 20:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Another reason is that only technically oriented are inclined to install other Operating Systems, that doesn't say anything about how easy or hard is to use or install Linux. Nowadays Linux is easier to install than Windows, especially installable LiveCDs: Mepis, Ubuntu (Dapper), PCLinuxOS, etc install in 10-20 minutes and give you a full operating system (including Office software, image editing software, mutiprotocol IM clients, usable browser(s)) AdrianTM 20:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I do not understand the reason about repeatedly removing a valueable link in the External Links section. First the links get removed with a reason "we already have a tutorial site that has a similar content" (which was untrue back then and still untrue by now), now it got removed with the reason "(no adverts please)". This time more info about what made the site differ from the other "duplicate" was added, now its adverts. What does anyone have to do to get a good link online? (I won't add the link here, because it might be called spam and this section gets removed... just see the diff between version from May, 31st 8:16 and 9:23 (the last 2 as of this writing)). if a site gets ~800 (happy, according to votes) visits per day, can it be that bad? TheSash 15:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not the one who removed these links. But please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Basically, external links are not appropriate for Wikipedia. They are allowed in some rare cases. --Yamla 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That is the best and most useful explanation of external links I have heard; thanks. Haakon 15:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I do agree about your points, but already having links of that kind and quoting WP:EL: "What should be linked to: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." and "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.". In this case its mainly documentation. I really think adding the link adds valueable information and I don't want or can copy&paste all content to the article. TheSash 15:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think these criteria needs to be followed for link inclusion:

• content can't be copy&pasted in article.
• is relevant to the article.
• is important enough, it adds something to the article (doens't contain duplicate info)
• is not redundant (for example there are 300 Linux distros and each one has a site and many howtos and documentation sites for Linux -- we can't include all of them in this page) -- AdrianTM 16:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

about the criteria posted above: I agree completely, don't get me wrong.

To those points:

• content could be copy&pasted, but its about 140 entries on the main site +50 on a subdomain. Additionally ~17000 other pages like manpages, package information a.s.o. If anyone wants to copy them, feel free.
• In my opinion it's relevant (there are similar links already there)
• no duplication of article info, to best of my knowledge.
• the site aims to be a collection of those documentation site when it applies to all linux distros. There are subdomains for dealing with special distros. (more ready to start)

Feel free to visit the site and decide for yourself and give your feedback about what you think: Inclusion or not.

But please don't judge just by "its an external link, it must be bad".TheSash 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds (or at least dozens) of linux sites with howtos, why should Wikipedia link to this particular one? (I'm not saying it shoudn't be, I'm just asking) Also I think that this Linux article is about what Linux is, its history, not about "how to install Linux" even less about "how to install GIMP on Linux', the type of howtos you can find on that site. BTW, if the site didn't have ads I would be more inclined to support a link to it -- AdrianTM 18:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

maybe you didn't look too close (you didn't had to), but I don't remember having more than maybe two or tree how to install program X manuals. And those are only if the manuals have a bigger target (like using raid or something or to something bigger with that tool). About ads: those are non intrusive google ads like on many other sites, inkluding those already linked to (here and elsewere). Btw. running this site costs money, showing those ads help to get the site running, not to make me rich. (with 20 USD/month income is pretty much even with the costs). If someone would donate money like on wikipedia, I could remove the ads... and having a "commercial news site" link with intrusive and annonying flash banners does not compare? Why link to this site: simple: do a google search for one of the topic of an article on the site or just "linux howtos" and look at the results. TheSash 00:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand the thing with the ads. Well... to me linux howtos is a little bit out of the subject of this article, however I will not edit out the link, I'll let other people decide. AdrianTM 00:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the fact that there were no more objections, is it save to assume that the link might stay if I put it back in? If there are no more objections, I would put the link back in about 24 hours. TheSash 08:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There are objections. Your site is not notable, and Wikipedia is not a link directory. There is already a link to the major TLDP site, which is notable. I cannot see any reasoned justification for having the link, especially not when it's added by the webmaster himself, who so far has edited Wikipedia only for this link. Haakon 10:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I give up. Fine, keep linking to old, outdated documentation without good searching or editing abilities and read through 20 pages when you really need a 1 line copy&paste. Btw. I did editing before, just without username, I registered the name mainly for this discussion. I will think twice before editing/correcting anything again. (except removing content that violated copyrights hold by me). TheSash 10:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that Linux.com and the two distribution chooser links should be removed. A site with day-to-day news about the topic is not an appropriate link for an encyclopedia, and the distribution choosers superficial and even further from the purpose of the article. -- Centrx 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

GNU/Linux

I don't think the first sentence should say that Linux is also known as GNU/Linux. "Linux" refers to the kernel, which doesn't have anything to do with GNU. "Linux" IS NOT THE SAME as "GNU/Linux". I'm not sure if I should change this, does anyone have any objections? --Bsmntbombdood 06:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"This article is about the operating system which uses the Linux kernel. For the kernel itself, see Linux kernel." so apparently the article is exactly about Linux OS, not strictly about kernel. My wild guess is that you'll provoke a holy war if you remove that... AdrianTM 06:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to start a holy war, which is why I didn't change it. This also brings up the discusion of "What is an operating system?". Some would say that an OS is just the kernel (ie. Linux), others would say that it is the kernel plus essential utilities (ie GNU/Linux), and still others would say that an OS is the kernel and a GUI (ie Windows or GNU/Linux+X+Gnome). --Bsmntbombdood 06:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

People in general (not kernel developers) when they talk about "Linux" they don't talk only about the kernel, that's why we have 2 separate articles about Linux and about Linux kernel, that's why we have "This article is about the operating system which uses the Linux kernel" otherwise I guess it would be a tautology. AdrianTM 07:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always objected to the article confusing, in the popular way, "Linux" with the several operating systems that use it. Where something like Windows has a single, coordinated release by one company, and even if we accept that general-purpose distributions are sufficiently similar, the various operating systems that use Linux, mentioned in the article as for embedded and supercomputer use, for example, are so different that the similarity is Linux kernel. Just a couple of months ago, the introduction said

In its narrowest sense, the term Linux refers to the Linux kernel, but it is commonly used to describe complete Unix-like operating systems (also known as GNU/Linux) based atop it combined with libraries and tools from the GNU Project. Most broadly, a Linux distribution bundles large quantities of application software with the core system, and provides more user-friendly installation and upgrades.

I have in the past proposed

Strictly, the name Linux refers only to the Linux kernel, but it is often used to describe entire Unix-like operating systems (also known as GNU/Linux) that are based on the Linux kernel and libraries and tools from the GNU Project. Compilations of software that are based on these components, called Linux distributions, typically bundle large quantities of software, such as software development tools, databases, web servers like Apache, desktop environments like GNOME and KDE, and office suites like OpenOffice.org.

Right now, the article is misleading if not downright false, and covers up what makes free software development unique and in the introduction says nothing about the bundling of software into distributions. -- Centrx 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I like Centrx's second paragraph, it explains both veiws about what "Linux" means. --Bsmntbombdood 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think either version quoted by Centrx would be fine. The old version of the introduction had been stable for a long time and tried to clarify these distinctions. Recently, however, some people came in and decided that prominently explaining these issues was pointless verbiage and needed to be removed. For my part, I tend to think that if you're going to write an article about "foo", the most important thing to do is to explain what "foo" is and what it isn't, especially if the same term is used for multiple things. —Steven G. Johnson 21:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The current text, while not perfect, is succinct and does most of the work. This article used to be an appalling mess because of the lengths people would go to to point out caveats and edge cases, supposedly for the benefit of clarity but achieving the opposite. The use of the term "desktop environments such as GNOME or KDE" is a prime example: at one point, this phrase was used about six times during the article. If the article as a whole explains the topic, then individual parts of it may offer a less complete description for the sake of readability.

In short, the problem with Centrx's version is that it needlessly fluffs up the intro for the supposed purpose of pacifying random readers who need to see their favourite Free Software element featured prominently in the Linux article. It assumes that all paragraphs after the second are merely elaborations on the intro. Such articles are top-heavy, packed with wordy clauses and prone to degenerating into lists of links. The current article as a whole is not misleading or outright false. The introduction does not fully explain the situation, but it is there to provide an *introduction* to the topic, not a *summary*. Chris Cunningham 23:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the "also known as" part is gross too, but failure to mention GNU at all in the intro brings forth tremendous rage from some parties. If there's consensus that the clause in parentheses should be removed I'd be happy to get rid of it and leave GNU until the History section. Chris Cunningham 23:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed. An "also know as"-part in the first sentence is common, often even for obscure names. One example is birthnames in biography articles. Readers who are not interested will simply skip it. "Gnu/Linux" is a minority term, but it is still used many (notable) places: Debian Gnu/Linux for example. Zarniwoot 14:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is is that Linux isn't also known as GNU/Linux. They are two different things that should not be confused with each other. --Bsmntbombdood 22:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My question is: Is Linux (not the kernel) one operating system or a common name for several related operating systems? If it's the last one (which I'm leaning to) the lead needs an update. If so, I think it can be done without getting bugged into definitions and details (but yes, we should be concerned about that). Zarniwoot 01:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's in exactly the same camp as "Mac OS X", "Microsoft Windows", "Unix" etc here. All operating systems have different branches and offshoots. It is needlessly confusing to make this distinction in the introduction. Chris Cunningham 07:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Windows and Mac OS have coordinated releases by a single organization that controls everything about the software. That is totally different from Linux. You can't even make an offshoot of Mac OS or Windows, whereas with Linux there are thousands. Unix, likewise, is an operating system released by AT&T with distinct updates and releases, and in its broad sense is somewhat equated with "Unix-like systems". What are you talking about? -- Centrx 16:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not much of a discussion, in my humble opinion.

[[3]] -- This image explains why Linux distributions are called "GNU/Linux"; At the same time it explains why it's not GNU/BSD/etc./Linux. -- Daniel N. Andersen, too lazy to log in.

The image doesn't explan anything, it makes a claim (at least one regarding this issue) using one point of view, also it's not complete it ignores things that were taken from BSD. I still support my idea to call the system GNUBSDL (and maybe use percentage, something like: GNU23%BSD5%L70% that will be very describing, since that's what we want, descriptive names). -- AdrianTM 03:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I still can't see much of a discussion, as the Linux kernel clearly was written for the GNU system. though it may not have been completely intentional to begin with.

"All" versus "Most"

People keep editing the exact relationship between GNU and Linux, presumably to avoid offending some party which uses the Linux kernel but no GNU libraries or programs. I would like the next person who does so to come forward with an example of such an operating system. Currently, all that is happening is that the end result is woolier. Chris Cunningham 23:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If the article says "Because all Linux distributions rely on libraries and tools from the GNU project", this makes it sound like it's not possible for there to be a Linux distro without GNU. It doesn't matter if no current Linux distributions don't use GNU, it certainly is possible. I would like the sentence to say either "Because all current Linux distributions rely..." or "Because most Linux distributions rely..." (without the italics, of course). --Bsmntbombdood 03:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying "because all current humans breathe air". Future speculation is rarely good for WP articles. Chris Cunningham 07:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not like saying "all current humans breathe air", because air is necessary for humans to survive. GNU is certainly not required for Linux to survive. --Bsmntbombdood 18:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Humans could theoretically survive on liquid breathing. I don't imagine Linus is going to be switching to Intel's compiler any time soon. Regardless, the edit has been made. Chris Cunningham 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The compiler used to compile the Linux kernel is irrelevant to this discussion. It is not a basic part of the running operating system. It would not be a reason to change all the names to GNU/FreeBSD or GNU/AtheOS, and it would not be a reason to change the name of your operating system to Intel/Linux if Linux were tweaked to compile on the Intel compiler. -- Centrx 22:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not about offending people. It is about accurately describing what Linux actually is, explaining how the kernel, distributions, and included software are all related, rather than leading the reader to think that there exists some "Linux OS" that is made and released by a single organization, similar to Windows or Mac OS, with the reader thinking the only difference is that they release it for free, allow the source code to be viewed, and as a central clearinghouse accept user-contributed patches. The resulting description may not be as short and simple, but it is still necessary to describe the situation accurately.

It is not necessary to do all of this in the introduction. This article largely exists as a primer, and treats Linux as being more homogeneous than it is for the sake of allowing people a point of reference compared to what they already know. Chris Cunningham 07:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Heaven forbid that a reader be confronted with their own misconceptions. No, you're right: we should stick with the fiction that "Linux" is a monolithic operating system like Windows or MacOS, because reality is too complicated. —Steven G. Johnson 04:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Heaven forbid people should have to read more than the opening paragraph of the article to get the full story. Please don't lose track of what we're arguing over here. Chris Cunningham 10:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, why should someone have to read the whole article in order to not get a false impression? One major purpose of the introduction is to give a good general overview by which a person can know, generally, what the subject is about, without reading the whole article. The reader should not be mislead in the introduction or required to read the whole article just to get true information. Are we to put a line at the end of the introduction that says "This introduction is partially false and may mislead you; you must read the entire article. -- Centrx 18:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're unaware of quite how subtle a difference this is for most people. So subtle, in fact, that a heavily-edited article like this still struggles to frame it in an accurate and concise manner. In fact, given that Stevenj above uses the term "a monolithic operating system like Windows or MacOS" when neither of those terms refers to a monolithic operating system indicates that the distinction is so subtle that people only see it when they're looking for it.

Still, I definitely don't have a problem with this on an ideological basis, just on a style basis. I'd happily accept an edit which made the distinction clearer without turning the intro back into unreadable mush. Chris Cunningham 18:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You have still provided no good reasons to provide misleading information. How do you know what the reader wants? and if the reader does not want accurate information, why are they coming to an encyclopedia? What is wrong with the proposed paragraph, an analog of which used to be in the introduction? You initially said it was "needless", which is false because the current introduction is incorrect. You initially said it was "fluff", which means that it is more wordy or grammatically complex than it needs to be in order to convey the same information; so it would not be difficult to make it more succinct, where is the fluffiness? You also somehow divined the purpose of the paragraph as "pacifying" readers who would be "offended" by not seeing their favorite software mentioned. This argument is totally bogus. -- Centrx 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding examples: First, what is meant by the "GNU" in GNU/Linux is the software that is typically essential to running a normal system, which are the C library and basic command-line utilities. Using Linux without GNU is common in embedded devices, which use the smaller dietlibc or busybox, for example, as replacements for this fundamental software. They are also found in tiny "mini-distros". Note that it is irrelevant to this discussion whether a system simply has GNU-made software running on it, such as high-level applications like music playing software or graphics environments, which are not part of any "operating system". -- Centrx 03:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that busybox is descended from GNU code even if it isn't actually under the GNU banner itself. Anyway, look at the way the sentence is phrased: Stallman is not asking for Linux to be unilaterally renamed to "GNU/Linux", just those operating systems constructed from it with GNU code (which so happens to be all of them). Again, if there are actual examples of uses of a Linux-based OS where Richard Stallman is prepared to say "okay, no GNU there, just call it Linux" then this should be changed when references are produced. I am not aware of any such examples. Chris Cunningham 07:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Busybox is not under the GNU banner and it was originally written from scratch in 1996 by Bruce Perens. This is not so much about Richard Stallman or the name GNU/Linux as it is about accurately describing what Linux, the kernel, and distributions are. Here are a couple of examples of distributions and devices which do not have major GNU components and cannot accurately be called "GNU/Linux": CoyoteLinux (uClibc & busybox) and uClinux with uClibc used on at least a half-dozen systems. There are numerous others. Also, there are at least three alternative small libc's, one funded by Red Hat, and books detailing their use. -- Centrx 18:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Some more examples of Linux without GNU. None of which are for embeded platforms. Blueflops, which I use, and here are many more that don't have anything to do with GNU. --Bsmntbombdood 18:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You guys are going off onto a tangent. Stallman and the FSF do not request that such embedded GNU-free Linux-based systems be called GNU/Linux. (See their FAQ.) Their argument is restricted to the common distros like Red Hat, Gentoo, SuSE, etcetera etcetera which rely on the GNU components. —Steven G. Johnson 04:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point, thanks. It's pretty clear after reading the FAQ that this section needs reworded. Chris Cunningham 10:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose we name such distributions GNU/BSD/Linux since they use BSD tools too. "GNUBSDL" for short AdrianTM 06:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

GCC

There is no value in providing both the initialism and the expansion when it's only referenced once. Everyone calls it GCC, so just call it GCC. It looks silly to have to provide the expansion when it's rarely used. Chris Cunningham 10:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

While GCC is the much more commonly used name, GNU Compiler Collection is the full name and is still used. See Google search — "GNU Compiler Collection" -GCC — with 60,000 results for usage of "GNU Compiler Collection" without usage of "GCC". Note that in some cases "gcc" is used specifically to refer to running the command-line program. -- Centrx 18:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

All very true, but all very irrelevant to this article and best left for the GCC article itself (which is conveniently linked for anyone who cares). Chris Cunningham 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is known by both names, why not just say both? --Bsmntbombdood 22:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Style. This is a big and complicated article. It does not need its word count artificially inflated by expanding all the initialisms. The article loses no value by not expanding GCC. Chris Cunningham 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If a style gets in the way of providing full and accurate information, then it is not good style and is irrelevant here. There is no good reason to exclude the full, accurate, and commonly used name "GNU Compiler Collection", which also distinguishes from the old name GCC: GNU C Compiler, and there is no good reason to exclude the most commonly used name "GCC". Also, I would not be surprised if, in a couple of months, GCC is referenced within that section so that the parenthetical initialism is added then anyway. -- Centrx 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's your best argument, I don't feel compelled to reverse my stance (as I did above). I don't believe that paragraph warrants much expansion comparing to, say, the usage section (which along with the desktop section is the only part of this article which still needs serious attention). I will continue to fight for a professional level of English in this article in spite of Wikipedia's tendency for articles to continually attract parentheses and irrelevant trivia best left to sub-articles. Chris Cunningham 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think three-letter abbreviations constitutes a "professional level of English"? If your best argument is style, when others consider it in fact better style the other way, and when it is better to include more information when it is true and NPOV, then the page is going to have both. Your other arguments have been that it is "silly" and that it "artifically inflates word count" (It is one word, and no one is advocating "expanding all the initialisms" (emphasis added)) Why do you think five characters "(GCC)" constitutes so serious a problem when it adds true and NPOV information? -- Centrx 01:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who isn't convinced, Google returns _five million_ results for "International Business Machines". Number of times this expansion is warranted on Wikipedia: one. Chris Cunningham 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are 182 instances of "International Business Machines" on the English Wikipedia. One in the first 10 is a quote from a newspaper (Times) article where the full name is used. Why shouldn't the full name be used? -- Centrx 01:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should fully expand "GNU C Compiler" to "GNU is Not Unix C Compiler" and then that to "GNU is NOT Unix in Not Unix C Compiler". I just don't know were should we stop.... just like some people over here. -- AdrianTM 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a purposefully farcical expansion, and is never used except when referring to the acronym as acronym whereas "GNU Compiler Collection" is straightforwardly descriptive and is used to refer to it. -- Centrx 01:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Point is, some things are refered to by their acromyms, GCC is like that, if someone wants to read more about GCC there's an entire entry just for that. -- AdrianTM 01:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Three letters in parentheses is not much to read—or skip over. In order to have a professional level of English, the compiler collection should be refered to in its first instance by its full name. -- Centrx 02:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect. The rule is that abbreviations must be expanded in the initial usage when they are being used for the sake of brevity - in GCC's case, the initialism is the most common usage. I don't see you arguing that International Business Machines must be expanded in the article's introduction. Chris Cunningham 16:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think maybe IBM should be expanded too, though reasons against this are that space is at a greater premium in the introduction, that these companies are in a tangential list of examples and are not the subjects of the sentence, and that IBM has been the name for more than fifty years. -- Centrx 04:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to chime in that writing "GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)" once in the article is useful since it makes the article easier to understand for people from outside of the free software world. Imagine you went to a Microsoft article and found a load of acronyms - useless. IBM is different because IBM is famous in the world. If you expand GCC, a microsoft user can say "Oh, a compiler", or "Oh, the GNU compiler", but expanding IBM will not spark any similar awareness. If you have to explain IBM, it is more likely to be useful if you say "IBM, the computer company". Gronky 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It currently reads, "GCC is the most commonly-used compiler family on Linux". it is not actually possible to fail to understand that this sentence refers to some compiler family by the name of GCC. Chris Cunningham 07:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)