Talk:Linux

Linux

WP:NOTFORUM, closed by Ahunt (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Linux is an operation system which is free. Most of the distros are free and some are not free 103.83.245.153 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC) The Linux kernel is free software (GPLv2), but it's just an OS kernel, not a usable full operating system for most purposes. (Some embedded application could conceivably require only the kernel, with some in-kernel application-specific code linked into it, and no userland code or loadable kernel modules.) A Linux distribution adds additional components that result in a system usable for its intended purpose (whether embedded or general-purpose). Some of those components might be present by default; others might be optional. Some of those components might be free software (whether some version of the GPL, some version of the LGPL, or some version of another free software license), and some might not. Some distributions have only free-software components; some distributions have mostly free-software components and some optional non-free components; other distributions might have non-free default components. So it's not as simple as you state. Guy Harris (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Linux, the kernel, distributed via kernel.org, contains non-free blobs. GNU Linux-libre has those parts removed. 152.208.5.190 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC) So what? Are you proposing some improvement to the article? Otherwise see WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC) I am not the original poster. I merely contributed by doing what I can to correct Guy. Am I not allowed to respond? 152.208.5.190 (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Sure you can respond, but this whole thread is non-constructive, as it is not contributing to improving the article, so I will close it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Linux"

I know there's a clip of Linus pronouncing "Linux" from 25 years ago, and he pronounces it as " LEE-nuuks", as stated in the lede. He's lost his accent somewhat since then when speaking English and doesn't pronounce it this way anymore.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, either way, I just find it an interesting question I guess. He invented it, so I guess he gets to call the shots, but is that what he actually meant to say at the time? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The pronunciation keys on Wikipedia are utterly horrendous. I don't understand the rationale for them - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and the people writing the pronunciation keys don't seem to understand how the English language works. Why include them at all?

The entry for Linus Torvalds - like most articles with a pronunciation key - gives a US-centric pronunciation that not only butchers his name, but is also quite different from how people from Commonwealth countries might pronounce his name (my own native pronunciation is /ˈlɪnəs ˈtɔːvɑːldz/). But the pronunciation key for "Linux" pushes a pronunciation that doesn't fit English phonotactics at all. This is completely insane. 126.215.246.227 (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

GNU/Linux for distributions using the term

Argument against - @Aoidh:

Linux is the WP:COMMONNAME for this subject, and GNU/Linux is a minority POV term that is not used by the majority of reliable sources. (Read the archives and discuss on Talk:Linux if you believe that should be changed.)

— Aoidh

(See diff)

You wrongly invoked WP:COMMONNAME, this is for titles only, yet you did not change any of the titles - Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre, Trisquel.

GNU/Linux is a minority term because people censor, redact it only to attract newcomers with facilitating, false premises like 'Linux is an operating system'...

The term is NOT a POV, perhaps excepted for people who are from the various FSF chapters - that's a very reductive statement to make, saying anyone saying GNU/Linux is someone trying to impose a vision. GNU/Linux is the name of the operating system for the majority of distributions using the Linux kernel or a derivative one. In these cases it is for Trisquel and Hyperbola - or precedently for Hyperbola.

Only having one article on the 'naming controversy' and not allowing various article to use different terminology accordingly of the context is a vicious circle to make 'GNU/Linux' unpopular, mostly unused in reliable sources.

I am available to converse about this. Innomé (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I very specifically did not change any of those titles, because Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre is the common name of that distro. However, I did revert your change to reflect the fact that the WP:COMMONNAME of this article is Linux. Through the lens of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, GNU/Linux is not the name of the operating system and the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do not use that term. It is a minority POV term because it is used to advance a specific point of view that is very much in the minority with regards to its acceptance and usage by reliable sources. Distros can and do use GNU/Linux within the name of their distro itself and that name should be respected, but outside of that specific distro's name, they are still Linux distributions because that is what reliable sources use to describe what a Linux distribution is; Wikipedia does not refer to them as GNU/Linux distributions because within English-language sources "GNU/Linux distribution" is not the common name. - Aoidh (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Through the lens of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, GNU/Linux is not the name of the operating system

MOS:Linux was rejected...

It is a minority POV term because it is used to advance a specific point of view that is very much in the minority with regards to its acceptance and usage by reliable sources.

GNU/Linux is the name of the operating system used by Trisquel, Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre and more - that is not a personal opinion at ALL, but the official terms for these occurences.

The majority of users of Trisquel/Hyperbola/... do use the term GNU/Linux, only a minority use Linux in this precise community.

reliable sources [...] describe what a Linux distribution is

I am certain at least some reliable sources mention the term GNU/Linux, even if possibly aside the use of 'Linux'... You can't censor a term that could be used aside the popular one because its usage is minoritary.

Wikipedia does not refer to them as GNU/Linux distributions because within English-language sources "GNU/Linux distribution" is not the common name.

GNU/Linux distribution is a common name for distributions who use this name, it's in the title for Hyperbola GNU/Linux-libre, present in Debian's official name, Debian GNU/Linux and much, much more.

Linux is even commonly clipped when mentioning the few popular distributions who have Linux in their official name like Arch and Gentoo. It is not so common for people to say the full name of a declared 'Linux distribution' unlike the declared 'GNU/Linux' ones. Innomé (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't referred to MOS:LINUX any point because it is neither a policy nor a guideline. I already addressed GNU/Linux as part of distro names, that's a conflation of two different points and I've already addressed that, and you're not adding GNU/Linux to the title of a distro, you're adding it to the phase "Linux distribution", and the title of the distro does not nullify policy on the description of what it is. Users are not reliable sources. It's not censorship to follow WP:DUE, and within that policy GNU/Linux is a minority term that does not warrant over-emphasis. - Aoidh (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I see no point in your argumentation; the title already shows 'GNU/Linux', yet for some reason you probably take readers for children who cannot make the connection between GNU/Linux and the distribution concept? 'Linux' is mandatory to explain it clearly?

What you say is over-emphasis is barely the introduction briefly mentioning the naming controversy - that's genuinely invisible to unattentive readers as it's written almost(?) as a detail in this blocky introduction. Innomé (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

the title already shows 'GNU/Linux', yet for some reason you probably take readers for children who cannot make the connection between GNU/Linux and the distribution concept? Yes, that's precisely how I feel about your edits adding "GNU/Linux distribution". - Aoidh (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your honesty. Innomé (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

GNU logo in the introduction of this article

@Aoidh and Betseg:

[...] the Linux article should have the Linux logo, not the logos of related projects used with Linux

The introduction states it's about the OS family, not the Linux kernel.

Most of the OS family consists of Linux plus GNU, Busybox or Google technologies.

Only GNU has very strong historical ties with Linux; Busybox is a minor use and Google's Android and the small amount of derivatives are not as relevant, it is indeed popular but only has a few amount of usages - mobile devices and TVs - unlike GNU.

I will replace the GNU logo after the infobox awaiting responses. Innomé (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It is about the OS family, and that OS family uses the Linux mascot as the mascot. This article is about Linux, not GNU, thus the infobox's image is of the Linux logo. That Linux (often) uses some GNU libraries does not warrant putting the GNU logo in the infobox any more than Cult of the Lamb should have the Unity (game engine) logo appended to its infobox. - Aoidh (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not replace it in the infobox.

Popular term usage made the family 'be Linux' and not GNU/Linux - or Linux plus Android or whatever.

The 'Linux' in discussion is, a lot of times especially historically, a 'GNU/Linux', GNU deserves to be shown in the introduction just like the term 'GNU/Linux' is mentioned there. Innomé (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if the GNU logo should appear at all in the article but if it should, it the summary text should be tweaked (maybe to just The GNU project provides the most common userspace for Linux distributions. and move it to be floated right in the "Design" section immediately at/above the paragraph beginning with The GNU userland is a key part of most systems? I think that probably serves the reader better. (This is just a first suggestion for possible improvements.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion, thanks. I agree such an addition could be useful.

Furthermore I do believe there should be something to cancel the invisibilization of GNU OS, software or project within the introduction as well, not necessarily another image people won't even see after the enormous infobox, but balancing the brief mention that looks to me as 'Oh well, there's some minor controversy no one should care about, please continue reading'...

Waiting for @Aoidh:'s opinion. Innomé (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not replace it in the infobox. Yes, you did. I see that you then shifted it to below, but at the time I was writing that, I was referring to that edit. This edit is not an improvement either, because images should be placed in the article to increase a reader's understanding of the article's subject. Adding the GNU logo to the Linux article does not do that, and places an undue emphasis on the importance of GNU within the concept of Linux as a whole; what's in the article currently already places an appropriate amount of emphasis on that aspect of this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you did. [...]

I did before you mentioned it again, it's bizarre and ridicule to mention it again when we're progressing for a consensus, please refrain from doing this.

undue emphasis on the importance of GNU within the concept of Linux as a whole

That is your opinion. GNU and Linux are contemporary, other potential important technologies are much more distant from Linux's initial gain of popularity.

already places an appropriate amount of emphasis on that aspect of this article's subject

Your opinion again. Innomé (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

If you state something that is demonstrably false (I did not replace it in the infobox.), it is neither bizarre nor ridicule to point out that you did in fact do exactly that. I will not refrain from pointing out when a response to my comment is based on an inaccuracy. My comment was on why that edit has issues, especially when that was the last edit made that I saw when I started writing my response. That GNU/Linux is a minority POV term as defined by Wikipedia policy (such as WP:DUE) is not my opinion. - Aoidh (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

state something false

I said so because of context confusion, both of us are responsible for it.

I said it was bizarre/ridicule because of the lack of context we faced. You can point out anything if context is clear enough.

WP:DUE, uses the example of flat Earth

the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

The logic behind GNU/Linux is legitimate and isn't extreme at all - it being backed by the GNU project and the FSF is the only argument for people to say it's an opinion. Innomé (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the veracity of comments you make. WP:DUE is more than just that example, and the text of that policy applies here. Those advocating for GNU/Linux as the name is not so minor a viewpoint that it warrants no mention on Linux at all, like the flat earth example you gave, which is why it is mentioned at the article and in the lede itself as well, but further emphasis on this minority viewpoint would be giving it undue emphasis. - Aoidh (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We're again talking about the term, but it's not the subject of my initial contribution to this article.

Reliable sources and people (not a minority) affirm that GNU's importance is not just a side note in the context of the OS family in question. Innomé (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a conflation of two separate things. The history of GNU in relation to Linux is a separate issue to the name GNU/Linux. Indeed over half of the History section discusses GNU's role in the history of Linux. - Aoidh (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not half, that's a forth of the history section.

it's reductive to simply consider the inclusion of GNU's impact in the History section. Innomé (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Whether that would be reductive or not is a moot point, because mention of GNU is not limited to the history section by any means. More sections make various mentions of GNU or GNU projects/licenses than those that do not. Counting the lede as a section and discounting the non-content sections (See Also, Notes, References, External Links), 7 of the 9 sections in the article make some mention of GNU in some way, most of them significant mentions. Only Hardware support and Market share and uptake make no mention of GNU, and it would make sense for those sections to not do so. This article does not downplay GNU and its impact on Linux, as a simple read through the article will show. However, that does not mean that GNU needs to be over-emphasized and a GNU logo would at best be purely decorative for this article, because how would seeing the GNU logo increase a reader's understanding of Linux? This article discusses but is not about GNU, so adding GNU's logo is not warranted and would be about as relevant as adding a Unix logo. - Aoidh (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We were talking about the History section, of course I read and am aware of the whole article.

a GNU logo would at best be purely decorative for this article, because how would seeing the GNU logo increase a reader's understanding of Linux? This article discusses but is not about GNU, so adding GNU's logo is not warranted and would be about as relevant as adding a Unix logo

I doubt you grasped completly what UNIX is for [GNU/]Linux, it's only the proprietary counterpart that got replaced.

GNU is the component that made Linux viable for a long time before other systems came.

I'll finish simply saying I support @Skynxnex: and find it a good enough compromise due to the existence of the Wikipedia discriminatory (i.e. that makes a decision) guidelines and the amount of wikipedians and people who would voice no support to maintain the statu quo. Innomé (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

My comment was that would be about the most I'd possibly support. I'm not sold on even my proposed text. I think waiting for more input/ideas from other editors might help clarify the general sense of editors since there's no rush and we already mention GNU a fair bit in that section. Skynxnex (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I doubt you grasped completly what UNIX is for Your doubts are fortunately not borne out in this instance, and like History section and the example at WP:DUE, Unix was an example to show that the logo for GNU is not needed to aid in the understanding of what Linux is any more than adding the Unix logo would be. This section header suggests the issue is the lack of the GNU logo but your responses have nothing to do with that. It would perhaps be beneficial to state unambiguously what the issue that you see is, and what solution do you propose? Is this still about the GNU logo? - Aoidh (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I was telling you to review his suggestion; part is about the introduction, and another part is about putting a GNU logo and caption in the Design section. Innomé (talk) 07:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

No explanation has been given as to why the logo would belong on this article, and how adding that image would aid in the understanding of what Linux is. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, an image needs to illustrate something relevant to the article itself, and while GNU is mentioned in the article, so is BusyBox and Unix, but those logos don't belong on this article either, because showing those logos does not aid in the understanding of this article. The GNU logo belongs at GNU, not this article, it serves no benefit in being added but to add clutter to the page. - Aoidh (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Images are useful to emphasize the most important subjects, since we agreed the three userlands (Google's, Busybox, and GNU) are important I would suggest adding images in adequate sections - as such disreguard from now on the 'GNU in the introduction' part since we moved on - tell me your opinion. Innomé (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Images are useful to emphasize the most important subjects not really, they're useful if they provide context or additional information that text alone cannot. How does adding a GNU logo help the reader understand the role GNU played in the history of Linux? It doesn't. Adding the logos of other products does not help the reader and only serves to clutter or confuse at best. Android (operating system) doesn't have the Linux or Apple/iOS logos though there is a similarly situated relationship there, and for good reason. What you're describing is adding decorative detail for emphasis rather than comprehension, and that's not the purpose of images on Wikipedia articles. That logo does not have a purpose on this article. - Aoidh (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You didn't take into account - or focused again on GNU - my suggestion of not one logo, but multiple according to how much importance user-spaces are given.

Emphasis is not decoration or confusion at all - you're clearly wrong, repetition of key information is important for memorization, this has been proven by reliable sources, and now almost pertains to common sense these days.

User-spaces are much more important to mention, emphasize and explain than what you mentioned as an example, emphasize the history starting point with UNIX's logo. Innomé (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I not only took that into account but have commented on it several times (e.g. those logos don't belong on this article either). A logo for a related product/project does not add to the understanding of this article's subject, since those logos are not of nor about Linux. It's not repetition to introduce a logo since it's not a repeat of any previous information, and while repetition may or may not have benefits, what you're suggesting is not repitition but emphasis, which again is not something images are used for on Wikipedia. The question to ask when deciding whether to include an image in an article is "does this serve as an illustrative aid or enhance the understanding of the article's subject?" and the answer for these third-party logos is "absolutely not". - Aoidh (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The repeated info would be the caption, the image would at the very minimum attract attention.

The section 'Copyright, trademark, and naming' could have another image, probably related to GNU for the naming controversy - like the one in GNU/Linux naming controversy#GNU/Linux.

The section 'Market share and uptake' could have logos of the different user-spaces.

The section 'Community' could have dual images with the FSF and OSI logos. Innomé (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of images on Wikipedia articles. - Aoidh (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I should be grateful for this reminder; the English Wikipedia is set in stone with its ancient consensus on what should and shouldn't be.

Difficult to contribute on the Wikipedia of the statu quo. Innomé (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

"Busybox is a minor use and Google's Android [...] are not as relevant, [...] only has a few amount of usages" and "The GNU project provides the most common userspace for Linux distributions", are you both saying "more common" means "more projects use it" and not "installed on more devices"? Betseg (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, more distributions use GNU.

Perhaps around ten projects are using Android? Much less in any case. Innomé (talk) 06:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

More distributions may or may not use GNU, but that's not a metric that gives a good picture of actual usage. More people use Android than those distributions by several orders of magnitude. As of August 2023 over 70% of all smartphones in the world use Android. It is the most common operating system in the world by usage, surpassing even desktop operating systems such as Windows. Even if you combined the usage of every desktop distro, you'd get approximately 32.8 million compared to Android's 3 billion. That's well over 900 times as much as every desktop distro combined, so while there may or may not be more distros using GNU, those distros are not being used anywhere near as frequently as the non-GNU usages of Linux. There was a point in time where Linux was very much dependent on the GNU userland and to use Linux was to use those components, but that is no longer the case, and statistically most usages of Linux use BusyBox. - Aoidh (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't aware for Busybox, but it's probable, true.

Android's role is in the amount of user while GNU is in the amount of distro ans history. Both should be and are mentioned. Innomé (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

List of removed architectures

Linux has many removed architectures now, unfortunately there isn't a list anywhere as far as I know. I think this article should add a list of the removed architectures. If so should it be added to the Infobox or elsewhere.

The architectures are:

nds32, h8300, c6x, unicore32, CRIS, tile, blackfin, score, m32r, frv, mn10300, metatag, AVR32, h8300 and v850

You can list the removed architectures by running this command in the Linux source tree.

git log --diff-filter=A --oneline --name-only -- arch/ | grep -E "^arch/[^/]?+/Makefile$" | xargs git log --oneline --diff-filter=D --name-only -- Mr-Bossman075 (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)