Talk:Linux

Reverts of recent cleanups

I recently cleaned up a bunch of various problems with the article:

1. Removed "and POSIX-compliant" from the first sentence: this isn't so essential a point as to require cluttering up the first sentence, is only arguable correct (mainline Linux is not perfectly POSIX-compliant, often by design) and is semi-implied by "Unix-like" anyway.
2. Remove the "supported platforms" list from the infobox. Trying to make this comprehensive is completely hopeless. Other such lists have already been removed from the infobox in favour of discussion in the article body.
3. Removed a bunch of level-four headers from the beginning of the history section which separated sections only one or two paragraphs long. This is simply poor style.
4. Unpiped "[[free software license|free]] and [[open source license|open source]] software licenses". The split between those two articles is a nonsense which is long overdue for addressing.
5. Removed File:Linux kernel ubiquity.svg, which is completely illegible at its default resolution and which substantially duplicates other diagrams.
6. Removed the unnecessary column markup around the "See also" section, which is already fairly short; columns encourage expansion, and this section should not be expanded.

All of those have been reverted. IMO that should be undone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It was me reverting the above listed changes, as to me those weren't improvements; however, let's hear the other editors' opinions. Though, I agree that "supported platforms" list in the infobox might benefit from becoming truncated. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with number 3: move the "level-four headers" into history of Linux ScotXW (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't about moving the content, it was about merging the subsections. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I agree in principle that the version with subsections serves as a possible skeleton for the expansion of the history article; however, WP:SUMMARY implies that a shorter version of that would be retained here, as opposed to ScotXW's removal of the entire thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

relation to the BSDs, relation to free-software and open-source software

The very nice diagram File:Unix history.svg is linked in the Linux article, but it not present in any of the BSD-articles: FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, MidnightBSD, DragonFly BSD. It is not even in the Berkeley Software Distribution article itself. Why? Why this obsession in the Wikipedia with this?

There are the articles POSIX and Single UNIX Specification. Then there is the article on Unix and additionally also "Unix-like".

1. I would like to DUMP everything in this article that talks about Minix, Unix, Unix-like and bla, bla, bla into one of those articles.
2. I would also like to DUMP everything in this article that talks about "free software" and "open-source software" and the hhuuuuge differences between them two camps into, well, into somewhere else.

Comments? ScotXW (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If you ask for comments, you should wait more than 10 minutes before doing this. I'm not convinced this was the right thing to do. Respectfully, I'm reverting your changes for now and would like to see what others have to say. Msnicki (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep: From one side, moving that content would make sense, as it's not directly related to what Linux in fact is. On the other hand, having a broader context available is a good thing, and not many readers would go around to hunt those parts in other articles. Also, that content provides a bit of the historical overview, what's also a good thing – let's remember that Linux is much more than what it currently represents. Having all that in mind, my vote goes to keeping the content. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • for the historical overview, there is the article: History of Linux. As User:Thumperward already mentioned, the level-four headers are poor form; in fact, their sole purpose seem to be, to produce publicity for the mentioned software that pops up in the TOC (Table of contents)
  • for the "broader context", there are the articles POSIX, Single UNIX Specification, Unix and additionally also Unix-like. It should be enough to link to these articles.
  • This article should concern itself with Template:Linux layers, but in a far less sloppy form. Especially details of the Linux kernel interna, belong in that article ScotXW (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that four or five paragraphs on the general buildup to the kernel announcement is untoward. WP:SUMMARY does not demand that articles be stripped entirely of anything covered by more detailed history pages. As for why this article does a better job of informing readers than the BSD articles, it's because this one attracts far more attention and thus has iterated to higher quality (in rather a neat analogy to the way that Linux itself has left the BSDs behind). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

This article should describe the Linux family of operating system, and IMO there is much to much emphasis on the relation to BSD and MINIX and bla, while the actual thing, Linux is quite poorly described. Clearly, this article has been high-jacked by free software-zealots as well as BSD- and MINIX-trumpeteers. It ok to link this stuff, but they all got their own articles... The Linux-article, in its current form, is absolutely poor-quality, so lets us omit useless flattering. Not only does the superfluous free-software, BSD-, MINIX- content create a wrong picture of the reality, but it additionally makes it hard to actually write a good article. ScotXW (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with removing the mugshots of Tannenbaum and Stallman, and the micro-sections should be removed again to give us something like this revision, but I don't see that you're making any compelling argument at all regarding trimming that further. The problem with this article is not particular special-interest groups; it's that fanboys are typically poor writers, and this article has a greater-than-usual ratio of fanboys to disinterested writers for an article which isn't on, say, cartoon ponies. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, and after looking again at the above linked revision of the article, I agree that ditching the subsectioning actually makes it better. Went ahead and merged the subsections again. Of course, more work could be put into the Linux § Antecedents section regarding its readability, but now it's better than it was before. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

At the same time, History of Linux article appears to me as a totally unreadable mess. Why don't we make that article good, instead of attacking the not-so-bad Linux article with a chainsaw? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. And instead of repairing that article, people decided to DUMP their stuff into this article. That is why I voted to UN-DUMP it again. ScotXW (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's actually a good thing to have a brief historical overview in this article. This is an encyclopedia, and one of its purposes is to provide a broader context. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. We are compelled to say something about these subjects in this article; the question is the degree of coverage. Most of the detail should be left to sub-articles, but not all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. I wanted to read some other comments before deciding. I like the article the way it is. One really big problem with an article like this is that there are a lot of disparate viewpoints in the sources and among our editors and they all need to be represented proportionately. We need to tell what seems like a whole story. It's not enough to have a See also section. ScotXW is to be commended for being bold and giving us something to think about. But respectfully, I disagree with the proposed change. Msnicki (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

network transparency & X window system

Jus thought I'd mention something a casual reader (I) saw: In the "User Interface" section, "Most popular user interfaces are based on the X Window System, often simply called "X". It provides network transparency and permits a graphical application running on one system to be displayed on another where a user may interact with the application.[56]" (emphasis added)

clicking on network transparency brings you to an article where the second line claims it is incorrect to speak of the X window system in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cd1207 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! That's a very good point; went ahead and clarified both articles (edit #1, edit #2), please check them out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

GNU and me too

The lead pgraph says The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel [...], also misread "The defining component of an OS is the kernel". This page is "Linux" the computer OS. Let the page Linux kernel say "The Linux kernel is a Unix-like operating system kernel". Also it is misread "The Linux kernel is the Linux kernel" or "The Linux distribution is defined by the kernel", both of which are misleading.

For a lead? For a grandmother hearing "Linux", Linux should mean the entire distribution, (not just the kernel), because it will mean what she can have instead of Windows XP. "Linux kernel" is used elsewhere, under the lead, in the body. Proposed:

A Linux distribution is a software stack configured through a Linux kernel. A distribution of Linux is largely documentated and support by the GNU project. .

It is not for nothing that the title GNU/Linux is an immortal redirect title to this article. GNU should be mentioned definitively. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 23:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I won't revert you again – I'll leave that someone else, confident there probably will be someone else – but I really don't think posting this cryptic proposal (which, btw, doesn't match what you actually did), waiting 2 days and getting no response constitutes discussion indicating you have consensus support. Msnicki (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I've reverted the edit for a few reasons. As I mentioned in my edit summary, "A distribution of Linux is largely documented and support by the GNU project." makes no sense. I also disagree with Cpiral's assessment of how the current wording reads; I'm not seeing how it could be construed to read "The Linux kernel is the Linux kernel." I'm also not sure what Cpiral is trying to say about the redirect; it is [WP:NOTFINISH|neither immortal]] nor is it a "title", it's a redirect. - Aoidh (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is a distribution supported? Documented? If so then a distribution is documented and supported by some project.
  • If, as it now says, The defining component of Linux is the kernel [the Linux kernel], then it logically follows that "The defining component of Linux is the Linux Kernel". But the metalanguage of this article is about a distribution, is about a computer system, as defined by the analysis of the situation into hardware, user, and default software between the two. Thus the proposed "Linux is defined by a software stack configured through a Linux kernel" and "Linux is largely documented and support by the GNU project."
  • The search results page specialized search box says "There is a page named "GNU/Linux" on Wikipedia". To the search engine, if not the navigation command from a user who types "GNU/Linux", "GNU/Linux" is a title of a page on Wikipedia.

There's Linux as a "look and feel". Opposed there's Linux as a developer's or hobbyists kernel-modifications. The two are somewhat opposed as defines an audience.

The defining component of Linux, our lead now says, is the kernel. Well it depends on who is doing the component analysis. It depends on the audience including the GNU/Linux seekers. To GNU, and to me, the components are the computer, the user, and the look and feel of the system between them. The key component here, per my audience-analysis, being "the system". The audience for this article is the user, and the subject for this article is "the system". The audience is not interested in how a kernel defines Linux.

What defines Linux for our audience?

• The lead depicts Linux running on a supercomputer. (I think supercomputers are defined elsewhere by key hardware components.) "Linux runs supercomputers." Not bad, sounds great. Who cares what version and kernel mods might have taken place when all they need to know is that Linux runs supercomputers. Another OS or kernel could have been be modified to run that supercomputer, but Linux runs supercomputers.
• The first sentence says Linux is a computer operating system. But does that three word phrase describe the subject of this article Linux (GNU/Linux)? I read that phrase more as a "computer system". Is the subject of our Linux introduction going to mention some "operating system" feature? (The GNU C Library, as the kernel, could mislead our Linux audience.) The "operating system" interpretation of computer operating system could define Linux by the kernel if the audience was OS hobbyists and OS developers. Let's line vote by outline.
• The TOC as an outline says sections exist for "creation" and "development", and "programming" of Linux, scoring three points for the defining component of Linux being "the operating system kernel", for our hobbyists and developers.
• Scoring ten points is the user-definition of Linux as a computer system in its entirety, a "look and feel" of a computer system design.
  1. 1.3 Commercial and popular uptake (user uptake)
  2. 2.1 Design of User interface
  3. 2.2 Design of video input (user input)
  4. 4.1 Desktop uses (user)
  5. 4.1.1 Performance and applications (user's look and feel)
  6. 4.1.2 Components and installation (installation as user experience)
  7. 4.2 Servers, mainframes and supercomputers (look and feel)
  8. 4.3 Embedded devices (content is mostly look and feel)
  9. 5 Market share and uptake (executive summary, look and feel)
  10. 6 Copyright, trademark, and naming (popular user uptake due to look and feel),

The "computer system" reading should be defined by the look and feel experienced by its users and onlookers. Finally, "computer operating system" here does by my count mean "computer system" is more a primary topic than "operating system". An operating-system orientation would define Linux the way the reader of Operating system would like it, by then reading Linux kernel. — CpiralCpiral 06:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going to sound rough, so I apologize in advance, but anyway – if you don't care about how and why Linux runs supercomputers, and what's under the hood of an average desktop, why should I care about your essay promoting managerial and GNU buzztalk? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Because I care. — CpiralCpiral 01:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

---

What is "Linux", when it is the single worded question "Linux?" typed into the Wikipedia search engine? The answer could be "a key component of an operating system", but I'm raising a disambiguation issue against it. I'm trying to make an objective, impersonal, appeal to a move from

Linux

1. Operating system kernel
2. Operating system distribution

to

Linux

1. Operating system distribution
2. Operating system kernel

in the lead paragraph. Blame the new hovercard feature :)

I see two contexts of "Linux" the word—kernel context and distro context. I can simply count occurrences and divide, into one side or the other, 1) the sections of our article, 2) the 239 Linux-in-title articles on our wiki. Intuitively I'm thinking that the reality of "Linux" in the English language is on the "distro" definition, not the "kernel" definition, and so in the lead paragraph (that fits a hovercard), that we should mention, via the term "GNU project", the popular Free Software Foundation giant and deemphasize the esoteric things that most people couldn't nod to, like the technical meaning of an "operating system" verses the commonly understood meaning of an "operating system". — CpiralCpiral 01:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think that the majority of regular people could nod to the term "GNU project"? Joe Average doesn't give a fu*k about Linux, GNU or whatever makes up some... Linux? A distribution? Can I have my Outlook calendar on that? Whaaat, I can't? Who made that unusable thing?

Wake up. We're just spending our energy over things that 95% of people neither care nor know about, instead of doing something more productive. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Renaming "Linux" (sic) to "GNU/Linux"

The NPOV have limits. Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia", so it should of course promote the Free Culture (so Free Software, which is contained in Free Culture).

Most "Linux distros" (sic) are modified versions of GNU. The GNU project started GNU at 1984, years before Linus Torvalds started to write his kernel. The RMS's objective was to develop an 100% free Unix-compatible operating system : the GNU system. The GNU project do not develops all elements, but the most. The GNU project opens the way for create a free system and creates importants free operating system components. That is the most important contribution.

So, GNU must is in the name of the GNU/Linux system. Because GNU/Linux is just GNU with a different kernel : Linux, which is just a kernel. A kernel is not more or less important than the rest of the system. The C library are important, and are hard to write too. The shelltoo, the core utils too. Most parts of the system is important and hard to write.

Linus Torvalds gives a big contribution too, but that's nothing compared with the GNU project contribution. But he, and the most of the Linux developers do not care about freedom, which is the goal of projects like Wikipedia, GNU, etc.

Peoples who says "Linux" gave a bad idea of the goal of the GNU system (and the GNU/Linux system, so).

At the Linux kernel project starting, all peoples using GNU/Linux was hackers, and hackers of this time know all that Linux is just the kernel, and GNU is a big part with. But the arrival of Slackware "Linux" (sic) has changed the situation. Slackware was (and is always) destinated to normal peoples, not hackers. Normal people do not know about GNU. Bad idea began to spread. Red Hat began creating another distribution, Red Hat Commercial "Linux" (sic). If Red Hat had the ideals of freedom, it would surely say "GNU/Linux" or "GNU/Linux/X" or "Linux/GNU" or "Linux/GNU/X". But Red Hat is a business, and unfortunately, businesses have no ideals of freedom. (Note : Red Hat have declined the FSF proposition for say "GNU/Linux", IBM too. But Mandrake have accepted. Thanks Mandrake.)

Debian arrive and invent the "GNU/Linux" term, but that was too late. But "too late" do not exists now. If we use the "GNU/Linux" term, that will change the situation. Distros like Debian, Trisquel or Parabola uses the "GNU/Linux" term. Thanks Debian, Trisquel and Parabola.

The peoples who says "Linux" think the "Linux" (sic) system is created by Linux Torvalds in the 90. But GNU/Linux is created by the GNU project and Linus Torvalds, in the 80 (original contribution)/90 (kernel contribution).

Of course, when we talk about the kernel, "Linux, the kernel" and "the kernel, Linux" are good terms. When you talk about the system, tell "GNU/Linux". If you talk about the kernel, tell "Linux, the kernel" or "the kernel, Linux". That removes all disambiguation.

If GNU did not exist, nobody would create a free system. Because today, the only free systems are either variants of GNU or BSD variants. BSD was released because the GNU project requested. Linux was a project designed to "help" with a kernel and GNU was specifically for the GNU system. Even if Linus would have created a kernel, it would surely not be released because he was influenced by a lecture by Richard Stallman. Although it would under a free license, free core would not really make a difference in the world.

So, for defend the freedom (which is the goal of Wikipedia), please rename articles who tell about "The Linux System" (sic) for they tell about GNU/Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Nooo, not again. :) Please, have a look at Talk:Linux/Archive 41 § Page move: GNU/Linux for a lengthy discussion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't read all. But I don't understand the arguments of opponents. What's clearly the opponents arguments? The majority of peoples who tells "Linux" (sic)? The popularity of an error do not make it true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 13:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearly "Linux" is the winning encumbent in the page move debate. Fine. But I feel called to change the second sentence in the lead paragraph: The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds. The GNU/Linux naming controversy is a perpetual calling. — CpiralCpiral 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You're going to need consensus to change that sentence, which I don't think you can get. The entire lede paragraph, including that sentence, reflects a lot of discussion and talk page negotiation. Msnicki (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Linux" isn't WP:PRECISE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 April 2014‎ (UTC)

You can't just cite a guideline, you have to show how it applies and gain consensus that you're right. There's an existing consensus that the existing title is just exactly as precise as it ought to be. "Linux" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic, e.g., as shown in the search engine statistics I presented during the last debate. Msnicki (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This article being at this topic falls well within WP:PRECISE, as that guideline specifically notes; this article's subject is the primary topic for the word "Linux". This isn't any different than any other article that is the primary topic, and isn't an argument for changing the title that is in any way consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines or consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Linux was a kernel, is a kernel, and will be a kernel for ever. When I see a software that works like a kernel, is destinated to be like a kernel, its role is like a kernel, I call that software a kernel. So, it isn't WP:PRECISE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 08:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)