Talk:Linux

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Linux article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53

Linux received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Linux has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 21, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
December 14, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 23, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 14, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
July 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

Useful info from Archives

Merge this article with Linux distribution: No, this is a WP:SUMMARY style article for the broader Linux picture
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.
Do we need the GNU history? Yes, GNU played an important role in the development of Linux as we know it today.
For previously discussed criticism of Linux, see Archive 2, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 10, Archive 17, and Archive 20.

Discussion about the name of this article (i.e., Linux vs. GNU/Linux) is ongoing on this sub-page. Discussion on the terminology used in other articles to refer to this article is ongoing here Please do not discuss the name of this article or references to it on the current page.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53

linux belongs to which company

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

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

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

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

Where did the Rfc go?

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

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

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

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

Move Linus' Picture

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

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

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

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

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

Claim about history of GNU project needs an adequate footnote

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

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

Flawed lead paragraph needs replacement

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

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

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