Talk:Debian

Overly Linux-centric in a few spots

The authors have done a good job of making sure that it is clear that Debian is an OS that works with either the Linux or FreeBSD kernel. That said, there's a few places -- particularly under hardware support -- where sentences like "Debian has no hardware requirements beyond those of the Linux kernel..." can still be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.223.175.71 (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This article was up for review for promotion to "Good Article" status in December 2008. The promotion failed. If anyone would like to contribute please follow instructions from the reviewer miranda at: GA Review.

Feature list

What about adding a feature list of the advantages of Debian over others? For example preseeded installations.

Mentioning of alternative kernels in lead section: edit conflict

Me and another editor (contributions) are having a conflict on wheter to include a statement about the three different kernels that are available for Debian in the lead section. This statement was originally introduced in this edit.

We also have reverted some other edits of each other, but most of them are not that important to me and it would be OK for me to keep the rest of the article as it is now. However, I was the last one who edited the article and in this edit I have introduced some changes that the other editor will probably not agree to. If that is the case, I'd like to discuss these changes here as well.

I'm concerned with the sentence "Debian is unique in its trifecta support for the Linux, FreeBSD, and Hurd kernels." I think the fact that Debian supports these kernels should be mentioned in the article, but I think it should not be in the lead section. Both alternative kernels are not used much (statistics from Debian popularity contest indicate that they are installed by less than 0.1% of all users) Furthermore I think that the way in which this information is presented is not quite neutral. In his last edit summary, the other author stated that "The point of the "trifecta" statement in the lead is to highlight the aspect of uniqueness.", which indicates that this statement was not intended to be neutral.

I hope we can find a consensus here.--Marko Knoebl (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this manner in a mature fashion.. Kudos to that. Now, as far as these edits, they basically amounted to four different things, each of which I had issue with, but couldn't really comment on as the changelog length is restricted.

• 1. The mention of Hurd and kFreeBSD support
• 2. The rewording of the section about a theoretical switch from GNOME to Xfce as the default selection
• 3. "site" -> "website"
• 4. "GNU/Linux" -> "Linux"

• 1:

Now, as far as the Hurd/kFreeBSD "trifecta" statement... Again, I need to reiterate here that this is for *emphasizing* the unique aspect in this regard, and thus I feel is appropriately placed. Especially considering Linux was already explicitly mentioned directly before it. Now, as far as it's "0.1% of all users" popularity... This does not derail it's factual basis. For example, according to statcounter.com, GNU/Linux systems have less than 2.77% polling points... Does this mean that GNU/Linux shouldn't be mentioned at all? Only "popular" things should be mentioned on Wikipedia?

Also, the fact that they're "soo unpopular", in my mind, places even more validity in higher visibility... For example, it's possible that the extremely low numbers are largely due in part to ignorance of their existence.

I understand the NPOV rhetoric and that Wikipedia is not for "publicity" and that's up to the actual organizations which represent for the content which is documented. There's no doubt about that, and it is completely moral and logical. *But*, I will note that almost all "non-biased" informational documentation has some sort of underlying bias, as it's almost unavoidable. Simply the fact that the documentation of some specific information exists at all can be argued as being a bias in and of itself. Take for example, information on things that are regarded as highly immoral by a large majority of general society, such as mind control, eugenics, or paedophilia. Does this mean this information shouldn't exist at all?

Again, any perceived "bias" that may exist, nor opinion on "popularity", make any difference in regard to the factual content of the "trifecta" statement. Can you point out another operating system which supports three kernels?

• 2:

So, about your "rewording" of Xfce-related junk... I will admit that I was partially predisposed against this in general purely because I didn't exactly love any of your other three modifications. Compounded by the fact, like I mentioned in the changelog, you actually *introduced* an error, rather than fixing anything. {/s/fits/it fits} You introduced an error, didn't fix anything, and didn't provide any new information... So it was wholly unnecessary. *My* edit of the previous version was the change from the "matter-of-fact" tone, to the "possibly-but-still-as-of-yet-unofficial" tone. It was worded specifically to emphasize this point, especially so that it can be noticeable and understood by the previous author, and other potential editors. Ich bin nicht ein deutsch-fließend. :)

• 3:

Regarding "web site" vs "site"... Obviously, the infobox is required to have "website" for functional syntactic reasons, so that was a minor slip on my part. But, as far as in the "text"... Well, first off: It's not really "text", they were in links. Now, as I briefly blurbed out in the logs, "This is an *OS* on the *NET*"... You're accessing information about a -computer operating system- through the -Internet- in 2012. AND they are HTML hyperlinks. I don't think there's any ambiguity about "site"... Topic-specific jargon is appropriate and to be expected especially in regard to UTF/ASCII/HTML/HTTP/TCP/IP/WWW/... It exists within every industry. Do people say "calculational devices", or "computational systems", or "hyper links" ? Where appropriate, maybe... To establish context. But here? *shrug*

• 4:

• http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html

• http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

• ▲
• ▲ ▲

• ■ ■
• ■ ■

• Etc.--75.32.37.33 (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the kernels I'd like to discuss three aspects of our conflict separately:

1. Where should we state that, in addition to the Linux kernel, Debian also supports the kFreeBSD kernel and the Hurd kernel?

In my opinion, this should be stated in the article body, and not in the lead section. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic". I am not questioning the factual correctness of this statement, I just think that the other kernels are not as important to this topic as the Linux kernel is.

2. Where should we state that Debian is the only operating system that supports three kernels?

For this statement, I strongly feel that it should be part of the article body instead of the lead section. I don't see much value in this statement for any reader - When deciding on which operating system to use, nobody will base their decision on how many different kernels are supported, as each installation can only use one kernel. And even if this is a fact which is unique to Debian, this does not automatically qualify it for inclusion in the lead section. Many aspects which are unique to Debian are mentioned in the article body - some of them seem much more important to me than the fact that it supports three kernels.

3. Which wording should we use?

To me, the use of the terms "trifecta" and, to a lesser extent, "unique" make the sentence very biased. I would prefer a more neutral tone, like "Debian is the only operating system that supports three different kernels." I think we should discuss this once we have decided where to put the above statements.

Concerning the edits on the hypothetical change from GNOME to Xfce: This part was recently edited by another anonymous editor who removed two of the issues that I did not agree with. The two remaining issues from my point of view are these:

• Placing of a link to GNOME 3: This is a redirect to GNOME, which is already linked to from the previous sentence. Visitors who will click on the link will likely expect to find more information on GNOME 3 through that link.
• Using the wording "GNOME 3 might not be able to fit on the first CD" instead of "GNOME 3 might not fit on the first CD". I think the first version is unneccessarily complicated.

Concerning the other two issues, I already said that it's ok for me to keep them the way they are now (i.e. keep your version)

--Marko Knoebl (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Kernels

What's the point of having "Latest kernel version just before the Debian release" to compare with? By design the kernels will almost always (well for Linux) be outdated due to the long freeze time. It should probably be removed. 81.233.34.70 (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)