Talk:Linux

Minecraft is written in Java, so it doesn't need wine to run on Linux

The desktop section mentions that Linux can run MS-Windows software compatible with Wine and Crossover, and mentions a few programs and games that can be run this way. And while it is true that Team Fortress 2 and World of Warcraft need some kind of emulation layer to run, Minecraft just needs the Java virtual machine, like on windows. Using Wine to emulate a Windows-based JVM to run Minecraft is not only contrived, but will result in poor performance compared to running Minecraft natively on Linux. I'm going to change this section simply by removing the reference to Minecraft. Maybe a "Gaming" section can be added, although Windows is generally the best choice for gaming, Linux is becoming a powerful gaming platform, especially with indie game development being rather Linux friendly, so maybe a quick section describing the gaming capabilities of Linux? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.20.236.244 (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No, gaming is too small and insignificant of a topic to be included into the primary article. Leave games to the Winblows camp who couldn't care for anything else. Unix and Unix-like is a business platform first of all, not a platform for entertainment, so let's not ruin this proud and respectable image with games. 46.73.23.209 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How is gaming "too small and insignificant of a topic" to be included? Your comment was out of place on wikipedia as the article is not based around your misplaced elitism. Gaming is a perfectly acceptable topic on a Linux article as it is often used as a home system by many people, not always as a business platform. Please leave your biased agender out of wikipedia. Start an opinion blog to voice your view if you wish, this is not the place! You claim it is "not a platform for entertainment" but surely its a platform for whatever the user wants it to be? The worst part of a small(?) section of the linux crowd, as well as the apple and windows crowd, is the silly little digs and attacks on other peoples choices due to fanboism. It's just the system you prefer that meets your needs or wants.

If information about games fits here, which I think it does, then it can be included. It may not have to be a full section but I've seen official releases of full games in commercial games shops as dedicated linux versions. Danno81 (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed name change

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the consensus be ever reconsidered ?

its been 3 years already so will this be given another fair chance for reaching a consensus ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaukikyo (talk • contribs) 14:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a consensus. It's just not a consensus that certain parties like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The official site should not be kernel.org

if you are talking about the operating system then kernel.org is not the homepage . there is no official site for the "linux" operating system . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaukikyo (talk • contribs) 07:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite. This was added last April with a summary saying "revert this edit if there is any controversy relating to the website parameter for this infobox": I think it's fair to say that this is controversial. :) I've removed it. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there are websites for different components and for different packaging companies, but there is no one official site for Linux distribution or OS. man with one red shoe 20:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

By the same argument, the infobox should not list the kernel version as the "version", nor should it list "assembly, C". We already list "various" under the licenses; it makes more sense to have "various" (or similar) for version and "various" for languages. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure its the same. When speaking of Linux as a whole, Linux's version number is typically defined by the kernel version. Linux 2.6 refers to the kernel number, and Linux 3.0 is the "upcoming Linux" as per common usage (an example). - SudoGhost™ 22:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The example you linked is obviously talking specifically about the kernel. If you are talking about the system as a whole (i.e. including userland), you are usually talking about a distro, in which case you use the distro version number. Hence "various" or similar is the only sensible thing to list for "version". — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree there should be no version for the OS. man with one red shoe 04:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the version numbers with a link to distributions and kernel.

We should not add to the confusion by having version numbers here. All too common at the help desk: "what distribution, what version?" - "Redhat 2.6.18" or "Linux 10.0".

--LPfi (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If we're really splitting hairs, then "user interface" need to be "various" as well, because the vast majority of current Linux distributions in the wild use neither a CLI nor X: they either run a Web server or just throw up a framebuffer. I've made some additional changes to make this more generic. At the same time, I can't help that by making this more generic we're making it less useful, but I suppose the only long-term solution for that is to have a real (as in reasonably high-quality_ set of dedicated articles for Linux on the desktop, Linux on servers and Linux on embedded systems or the like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Linux" operating system does not have version numbers

"Linux" operating system does not have version numbers . the numbers are for the kernel .