Jump to content

Talk:Linux distribution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Golftheman (talk | contribs) at 11:45, 24 November 2011 (Comment about joining two differen technical articles as one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The eponymous template {{Linux distributions}} has a talk page at Template talk:Linux distributions

In particular I'd like to point out to the newest discussion at Template talk:Linux distributions#April_2010_anonymous_revamp. We've recently had the navbox format changed to be not just a top-10 list as it was before, instead it's significantly expanded, but again we're having issues deciding on the threshold. Input is welcome. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Distribution

Should Mobile/tablet/netbook operating systems like android not be considered as Linux Distributions? should they not be mentioned in this article, especially with their growing user numbers IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should be mentioned, but those only distributed as firmware are not distributions in the sense of this article, neither systems distributed nearly exclusively for professional development. --LPfi (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The public has an option?

In the section about obtaining a Windows refund, it starts off with "Consumers also have the option of obtaining a refund for unused OEM operating system software," but then goes on to explain how it's nearly impossible and there have been movements to try to get refunds, and you basically have to file a lawsuit in some cases. On top of that, Microsoft has recently changed their EULA to prevent refunds as far as I know, something which should be handled by country laws anyway. I believe the current status of laws in the U.S. requires you to return the computer if you don't accept the EULA, meaning it is completely impossible to reject Windows in the U.S. short of a lawsuit. An abysmal state of things, and it makes someone saying "you have an option!" laughable. I think this sentence should be completely replaced with something along the lines of, "Due to the laws in some countries, it can be nearly impossible to get a refund for Windows." True racketware, here. Yfrwlf (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

large overlap between Linux and Linux distribution, merge?

Linux distribution contains almost all of the content in Linux. The two ledes are worded differently but are essentially the same. If the two articles have the same subject and content, they should be merged. 'Linux' refers either to the kernel or a distribution, so I've proposed the merge to here, rather than to Linux (which is ambiguous).

Linux distribution: A Linux distribution is a member of the family of Unix-like operating systems built on top of the Linux kernel. Such distributions (often called distros for short) are Operating systems including a large collection of software applications such as word processors, spreadsheets, media players, and database applications.

Linux: Linux (commonly play /ˈlɪnəks/ lin-əks in English,[4][5] also pronounced /ˈlɪnʊks/ lin-uuks[6] in Europe) refers to the family of Unix-like computer operating systems using the Linux kernel.

strcat (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support this, "Linux" even defined as "Linux OS" or "GNU/Linux" it's a bit of a fuzzy concept, it doesn't exist as such, it's only expressed in specific Linux distributions or as a custom built OS, but that's an extreme and rare case that doesn't get too much attention on Linux page either. man with one red shoe 18:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point, I support also. Although I admit article named "Linux" sounds better to me, but clarity is more important. --Sapeli (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Linux" sounds better, but an article with that name should be a disambiguation page or redirect to Linux kernel. Linux is a kernel, but the term is occasionally used to refer to a whole Linux-based operating system. Most reliable sources refer to a distribution as "GNU/Linux", "a Linux-based operating system" or "Linux distribution", not "a Linux". "GNU/Linux" or "GNU/Linux distribution" aren't correct for this article because it covers non-GNU based Linux distributions like Android, so "Linux distribution" appears to be the best choice. strcat (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. We should have only two articles. 1) "Linux" what is only about Linux operating system aka Linux kernel. 2) "Linux distributions" what is only about software systems distributed as finalized products. Now we have at least three articles 1) Linux kernel 2) GNU/Linux 3) Linux distribution and they are not technically accurate at all and even use technical terms as how marketing people like them to be used. The articles "Linux kernel" and "Distributions" should be revised and article "Linux" be removed and part of it to be joined to "Linux kernel" article. The Linux operating system (what everyone can download from kernel.org) is totally different area than whole software systems (distributions) using it. The difference (sorry, about car analogy) is same as having a article of specific car engine (Linux OS a.k.a Linux kernel) and article of dozens of cars using that car engine (software systems, a Linux distributions). Golftheman (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed this discussion, as the problem in question was mostly caused by this anonymous edit which cloned the entire history section into the distro article. The split is necessary because of the length of the parent article. Furthermore, "Linux-the-OS" is a notable concept outwith "distros", which are a mostly desktop-centric way of looking at things and therefore not altogether useful considering that desktops are really the least interesting area of Linux usage. I've undone the edit in question and it should now be obvious that the articles have different cores. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linux-the-OS is a nebulous concept, I think it should at least be split in "Linux as a server OS", "Linux on the desktop", "Embedded Linux" (or better name for those concepts). And Linux on the desktop could contain some of the stuff that's in Linux distribution. man with one red shoe 13:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There can never be a full split. We're always going to need a master article of some sort. Nevertheless, I proposed a very similar general move of content to sub-articles to that at talk:Linux#The official site should not be kernel.org. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's where I saw the idea in the first place, I especially support an Embedded Linux page giving the wide spread of mobile and table devices that use the Linux kernel. (Server and Desktop are not that different considering that any desktop can be used as a server, and the other way round) man with one red shoe 14:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, can you isolate your revert to not also remove the extensive fixes in the reference citations shown here. I am not sure how to do that without undoing all that you reverted. Thanks § Music Sorter § (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-run reflinks. It's not possible to selectively roll back only the problematic changes because numerous edits afterwards were to the added material. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that is why I am not sure how to do it. LOL. Thanks for fixing it. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linux_distribution&oldid=462247771"