Talk:Linux

Page move: GNU/Linux

Over almost a year of discussion since this thread was started, lots of people continue to come here and notice that the article title is clearly wrong. The singular opposition party, refraining from any change to the title, is composed of just two persons: man with one red shoe and SudoGhost. These two persons seem to control the article, holding it in this state reverting back any change oriented to a pro-GNU/Linux nomenclature. Not to mention that man with one red shoe finds his wiki references almost exclusively from Redhat-affiliated websites and this, together with the "red" in his name, makes me suspect he has business with Redhat and may not be an unbiased candidate to over-evaluate his opinions over those of the actual majority of the people writing on this thread to promote a title change.

Apart from this, I open a votation in favour of the change of the article's title to an expression containing the word GNU, such as GNU/Linux, or equally for the title Linux-based Operating Systems. Medende (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Support, because calling the whole operating system just "Linux" is a nonsense to me, as previously discussed. Medende (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as long as reliable sources use "Linux" to describe the subject, this article should not and will not be changed to "GNU/Linux". The reason "pro-GNU/Linux nomenclature" is being reverted is because that is an extremely minority term that has very little usage in reliable sources. Articles reflect reliable sources, not what we think is the "truth". It also doesn't matter what is "nonsense" to you, we go by what reliable sources say, not what makes sense to you. - SudoGhost 05:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

We always use the expression "Linux kernel" to designate the kernel. Maybe we can clarify it in the second paragraph after "The term Linux properly refers to just the operating system kernel itself".Applelinux (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Using "GNU/Linux" to refer to systems built on Linux is a minority view, so I agree that the article shouldn't be called that. It's not a minority view that Linux is the name of a kernel (whether or not it's the name of something else as well). So "Linux-based systems" or something similar would be an acceptable name, although not necessarily the best name. Count Truthstein (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying Linux isn't the name of the kernel, in fact we have an entire article about it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Linux only refers to the kernel, and reliable sources don't use the word "Linux" exclusively to refer to the kernel. "Linux-based systems" also has an article: Linux distribution, and that isn't the scope of this article; it is supposed to be an overarching article in keeping with Wikipedia:Summary style, so I don't think it's a good idea to impose arbitrary limitations on the scope of this article when (1) there is already an article that covers "linux-based systems" and (2) reliable sources themselves do not reflect such a name change. - SudoGhost 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Support. The name "Linux" misleads people. This is an encyclopedia and our duty is to educate, not to repeat misunderstandings. As WP:COMMONNAME says, we should avoid "Ambiguous or inaccurate names" and this is a perfect example. GNU/Linux is much clearer and more accurate. If people have questiosn, they can look at GNU and at Linux kernel and they will learn. When it's just "Linux", they look at Linux, Linux kernel, Linus Torvalds, and the misunderstanding is just perpetuated, which means Wikipedia fails its goal. Gronky (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment there is little point in asking people to vote for and against of a vague range of options. Have a look at WP:RFC and start a proper process if that's what you want to do. Things to think about: (a) GNU/Linux is an expression used by almost nobody. (b) If you succeed in getting all the content here moved onto a page with some other obscure descriptive name, the English Wikipedia page Linux will still exist - what (stated clearly) is your proposal for what this page should then contain? --Nigelj (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We've already had multiple RfCs on that subject. While consensus can change, that requires new arguments rather than just new people turning up to make the old ones. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a real problem with your attitude. "New people" are welcome to discuss the issues and the article is not owned by any editor or group of editors who've been editing longer. Count Truthstein (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Discuss them, yes. But consensus is not simply a matter of attrition, and one cannot simply march into a long debate and declare that it's time t rethink it because one happens to not have been around to take part the first time. We have talk archives in order to prevent that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha! "consensus is not simply a matter of attrition", says the editor that single-handedly changed all instances of "GNU/Linux" in Wikipedia articles to "Linux" during the Summer of 2009. Don't forget, I logged your behaviour. You've found a way to game the system with your edit floods, but there will come a day when Wikipedia has policies/systems to prevent that type of abuse. Gronky (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Replying to this off-topic sniping on your user talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support. GNU is an integral part of the system, since without it Linux (the kernel) is useless! Even Linus Torvalds says so:

"Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software [...]" ref

Note that he does not say "in linux", but "with Linux"; thus referencing the kernel in the usage of the name. Of course the article should still mention that many distros call the whole system simply "Linux": So both these names (Linux and GNU/Linux) should be right up there in the very first paragraph. Also, the page called "Linux" should then redirect to the renamed "GNU/Linux" page. In terms of article-content, it should be more clearly mentioned what exactly the different components of the system actually do (see the two bullets in the section titled What do the parts inside Linux do? (Linux Kernel, GNU coreutils and libraries) above, for a suggestion.)
Also: the GNU project began in 1983 which is some 8 years prior to the start of the Linux kernel. The user's of the Linux kernel, when looking for the necessary programs to actually create a usable operating system (coreutils, libraries, POSIX programming interface) out of it, found everything they needed from the GNU project and could just use it. Why did this work so smoothly? Because both are based on Unix, and thus easily compatible.
In case you're interested in Richard Stallman's view (he's the founder of the GNU project) of how the things happened:

Fortunately we didn’t have to wait that long, because in 1991-92 a Finnish college student called Linus Torvalds wrote another free kernel, well he wrote a kernel and at the end he decided to make it free software and he released it under the name “Linux”. He used to monolithic approach that had been used before. Well we didn’t know about Linux. Because he never contacted us to tell us about it. But he announced it on the network somewhere and people who knew about it said “Let’s see if we can find all the other parts of an operating system so that we can make a complete system.” So they looked around and lo and behold, everything they needed was already there. What good fortune, they said its already available, but there was no rock about it. What they had found were all the pieces that were going to be the pieces of GNU! So in fact what they were doing was fitting linux into that gap in that GNU system to make the combination of GNU + Linux. The GNU/Linux system. But they didn’t realise that. They didn’t that they were finding all the pieces of the GNU system. Therefore they were starting with Linux and finding these other pieces and putting them on top of Linux. So they call that a Linux system which they really shouldn’t have done. They had no business calling this version of our operating system by some other name. But that’s what they did. And the misnormer got imitated by other people, and that’s how it happened.

source (original source)

Hnfiurgds (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Guys, this is getting tedious. There is no WP:CONSENSUS to support the FSF's "GNU/Linux" agenda, that's not the WP:COMMONNAME and nothing has changed. Msnicki (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

About consensus: by this poll we are trying to demonstrate that there is a strong consensus and support for renaming the article by the most of the editors. About commonname: we will do what the majority of the people think it's right for Wikipedia. Medende (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not a head count. Instead of throwing bogus polls, read WP:CONSENSUS. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support. I'm jaded of reading the same wasted argument about overwhelming majorities using Linux. Do you really have nice statistical proofs supporting your point?, because I only keep reading challenging claims like "...that is an extremely minority term that has very little usage in reliable sources", or "as long as reliable sources use "Linux" to describe the subject", et cetera, but no references at all proving this supposed de-facto usage. Could someone point out last consensus on which Linux was chosen?, 'cause I'm a relatively new, yet committed Wikipedia user, and could have missed some important background in this millennial discussion . Meanwhile, I have collected a number of real, non-primary, reliable sources using GNU/Linux to name the subject. Some of them clearly embrace GNU/Linux while others seem to indiscriminately use both (so they still count for GNU/Linux acknowledgement purposes). Let's begin: the Electronic Frontier Foundation (read ending), VideoLAN (the VLC guys), Knoppix, Debian of course, Arch Linux, Slitaz and many more minor distros; KDE, LibreOffice, MediaWiki, Audacity, The New York Times (1) and (2), ZDNet, LinuxInsider, this paper used 3 times within current article page, Stephen Fry :), Jimmy Wales, the MIT,... and even kernel.org, (2): which is the official Linux kernel website!

I cannot assure they're the crushing majority, nonetheless, such an amount is surprisingly high. Neither the general article mindset, nor the pseudo-mascot image and the rest of the infobox, nor the GNU/Linux section properly cover the quite popular more-than-kernel view; regardless which is the most widespread term. Hence, the article contradicts WP:NPOV. (In fact, the whole infobox is a lame copy of that written for Linux_(kernel)). I find the current abstract/initial paragraph(s) pretty fair though; to be more specific, since 22 November 2012 17:47 edition by Tuntable, who added nice average-reader explanations for all this mess. --Isacdaavid (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are looking for something, and find it - then it is not surprising - nor is it statistical evidence (see Confirmation bias). Now the last time i participated in this (neverending discussion) i did do some statistical analysis, by checking the academic literature (and books) and whether they used Linux or GNU/Linux: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/LinuxWeight...Generously you can state that it comes to around 97:3 in favour of Linux vs. GNU/Linux - which says quite clearly that it is a minority term. (check the archives for others who've done the same as i have - they are there) Feel free to update it with modern figures - if you really believe that things have changed :) So until the time that you demonstrate that things have changed: Oppose --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The WP:COMMONNAME is very clearly Linux, not GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux is only used by a small group of FSF supporters and is not in common use in English. The existing and very longstanding consensus should not be overturned. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think it's clear that nothing has changed since the last dozen discussions and canvassing editors won't change that (from what I can tell, every single person "supporting" in this discussion was WP:CANVASSED). "GNU/Linux" is a minority term, and not the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, and until that changes Wikipedia policy does not support such a change. - SudoGhost 03:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions by far the most distributions (including the popular Ubuntu) are derived from Debian, and from the Debian website itself (http://www.debian.org/intro/about) "A large part of the basic tools that fill out the operating system come from the GNU project; hence the [name]: GNU/Linux". If proponents (such as SudoGhost) for keeping the article title as "Linux" based solely on what it is commonly known as, then maybe they should be arguing for a change to "Ubuntu" instead, because a lot of sources simply refer to the Ubuntu OS as simply "Ubuntu" without any reference to Linux at all. GNU plays a vital part alongside the kernel in most distributions, and that the Debian project acknowledges "GNU/Linux" has more credibility than whatever supposed common name these proponents claim is in use. Even if a reliable source can be found that claims common usage of "Linux" over "GNU/Linux", the sources claiming otherwise are far more credible (the Debian project). Editors like SudoGhost should get off their soapbox and stop reverting edits without justification or consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2013

That Debian page does use the term "GNU/Linux" but they also use the term "Linux" and where they use the term "GNU/Linux", it appears to refer specifically to the combination of GNU and Linux components. I disagree that they are saying that Linux is always "GNU/Linux". More to the point, even if we could establish that they prefer that Linux be referred to as "GNU/Linux", so what. Theirs would still be just one opinion and does not change the fact the WP:COMMONNAME in the press and elsewhere is just Linux. Finally, your attack on SudoGhost is unnecessary. There is an existing WP:CONSENSUS and it doesn't support you. Msnicki (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That Ubuntu comment makes no sense; the article is already referred to solely as Ubuntu, barring the parenthetical disambiguation. It is not referred to as "Ubuntu OS" or "Ubuntu Linux", because reliable sources refer to it as "Ubuntu". If you're referring to the fact that the Ubuntu website is lacking in the word "Linux", then that's not relevant, because this is about the page title, not the description, which the article does not use either. Why? Because reliable sources define it as such, it doesn't matter what terminology the website itself uses if the overwhelming majority of reliable sources give a more accurate and concise definition. Debian would follow that same argument, as would each derivative, so that doesn't really support your argument. It's odd to claim that this article should be changed "because Debian" but that a perceived negative should be avoided "because Ubuntu"; how many Debian-derivatives follow that same convention? Your own comment suggests that Ubuntu, the largest (with the most sub-derivatives) fails to do so, . This line of argument would, at best, warrant changing each individual article, but doesn't support renaming this article, which has a much larger scope than a single distro, since reliable sources don't support renaming the article. - SudoGhost 14:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why 203.129.23.146 even brought up Ubuntu. The official About Ubuntu page mentions Linux 4 times but never mentions GNU even once. It certainly doesn't refer to Linux as "GNU/Linux". Msnicki (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should (all) re-read my comment. Ubuntu is simply Ubuntu (not Ubuntu Linux), and Debian is Debian GNU/Linux. My sources are the vendor websites themselves. If you can't read and understand that (and find it in the sources), nothing I can say could possibly help you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk • contribs)

No, we understood your point perfectly, it just wasn't a convincing one, nor was it particularly relevant to this article. - SudoGhost 21:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Let's please move onto something more interesting. II | (t - c) 04:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. If you doubt that the WP:COMMONNAME is Linux, not GNU/Linux, here are some numbers from Google. It's not even close. Msnicki (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Type of search	Linux - "GNU/Linux"	"GNU/Linux"	Ratio
Web	1,130,000,000	29,200,000	38.7
News	123,000	8,400	14.6
Books	9,220,000	60,700	151.9
Discussions	70,400,000	2,940,000	23.9
Blogs	61,900,000	2,110,000	29.3
Patents	238,000	3,240	74.5
Applications	15,500,000	118,000	131.4
Shopping	236,000	933	252.9

Oppose While I haven't worked in this article or this particular subject, I've wached this debate for a while, and it seems to me the arguments favoring GNU/Linux try to favor the views of a particular group of people, so they are not neutral. The GNU/Linux issue is clearly refered on the lead and it makes perfectly clear what we're talking about, so I don't think it's misleading. Not A Superhero (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. Calling the combination of the Linux kernel with its most widely used userspace - GNU - 'GNU/Linux', rather than 'Linux', is about technical clarity and correctness, not the views of the FSF. We wouldn't call Windows 'NT', and we wouldn't call Mac OS X 'XNU' - so why aren't we calling the GNU/Linux operating system for what it actually is? 7sagan (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are two issues with that argument though. (1) Reliable sources do not use Linux to refer solely to the kernel; Linux is a kernel, but Linux is not just the kernel. (2) GNU/Linux is "correct" only according to a small group of individuals, and again that's not reflected by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. We aren't calling it GNU/Linux because that isn't what it "actually is"; it's only referred to as such by a small group and isn't reflected by common usage, and that certainly isn't the "official" name in any capacity. Linux is the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, so that's what the article's title is. - SudoGhost 10:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• The first point raised is patently incorrect. The world's biggest, most popular and forked "Linux" distribution, Debian, explicitly segregates usage of the word Linux to describe the kernel from the rest of the operating system, which is called GNU/Linux. I would call the Debian project a reliable source, and certainly not a minority. Analogously to your argument, the same "reliable" sources that call GNU/Linux "Linux", usually call people who circumvent computer security as "hackers"; a corruption of the original meaning of the word. Just because mass media perpetuates this misunderstanding as fact, does not make the corruption any more true or correct. And no, Linux *is* just a kernel, no matter how many times you assert otherwise. Linux is a kernel developed by Linus Torvalds in 1991; the other essential components, such as a shell, core libraries and compilers were developed outside the Linux kernel by other sources. As for your second point, QED. 7sagan (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Your opinion is that the first point is incorrect, your opinion is not fact and is not sufficient enough to ignore reliable sources. What a single distro does would be fine if reliable sources reflected that usage but they do not (and that's assuming that Debian is indeed the most "popular", which it isn't by any measurement). Is it not merely "mass media" which uses the terms in ways you deem "incorrect", and as editors we cannot disregard the overwhelming majority of reliable sources just because we disagree with them; it is only a "misunderstanding" from your viewpoint and opinion. When you step outside of that minority viewpoint, there is no misunderstanding nor is there any issue whatsoever. Wikipedia is not the place to right what you perceive is incorrect when reliable sources don't reflect your opinion. Your argument would be compelling only if Wikipedia did not base its policies and guidelines on reliable sources, and if "GNU/Linux" were indeed correct or official in any capacity. However, neither of those are the case, so that rationale is without merit. To assume that Linux is "a corruption" would be to assume that GNU/Linux is what it had been originally called. That idea, however, falls flat, since the term "GNU/Linux" had not been proposed until long after Linux existed in the non-kernel sense, so the argument that it is "a corruption" of correct usage falls flat; a corruption of GNU/Linux would be relevant if that term had been used originally. That is not the case, so it cannot possibly be a corruption since the "incorrect" one came first. Linux is also "just a kernel" only from a minority viewpoint, and only if you ignore actual usage outside of your minority viewpoint. That's not how Wikipedia articles are formed. - SudoGhost 09:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• You keep using the term "reliable sources". Technical correctness is not a function of reliability, but of objective truth. Would you call a toaster a microwave? A car a boat? Whether or not a "reliable source" asserts that a car is indeed a boat, we can clarify through our own observation and tests that indeed, a car is *not* a boat. We don't need a "reliable source" to verify inherent and self evident truths. What the media perpetuates, whether it be true or false, ought not be used as evidence for technical correctness. We should describe an object by its constituent elements and function as an entity unto itself, not on the well meaning, but often misguided views of the majority. 7sagan (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's the point, though. It is only "technical correctness" when you look at it from a minority viewpoint, one which is rejected by the wider community. It's not that people just don't know better, otherwise the years of discussion on the subject would have illuminated them by now. I appreciate that you feel that the majority is "misguided", but Wikipedia is not the place to correct that. - SudoGhost 13:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• The idea that smoking is dangerous for your health was once a minority viewpoint; the fact that it was a minority that held this view didn't somehow invalidate their technical correctness. Linux is the name of a UNIX-like kernel, which is, by defininition, not a complete operating system. This is objective fact, not opinion. 7sagan (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• For the last time, it is not technical correctness, it is your interpretation of the facts, one which is rejected by the wider community. That is the very definition of an opinion. That you feel strongly in your opinion does not make it fact, so when your only argument is that it's a fact and that's why it should matter, it is less than convincing. Especially since reliable sources thoroughly refute your argument, and on Wikipedia reliable sources matter much more than an editor's protestation of truth. Linux is the name of a kernel. Linux is also the name of a complete operating system. This is verifiable fact. So trying to argue that this article's title should be changed because you believe that your opinion should matter more than reliable sources isn't going to be very effective on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 04:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at that table of search results? Did you follow the link to WP:COMMONNAME where you'd have read, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data"? Your opinion doesn't matter. The whole world has spoken. It's called Linux, not GNU/Linux. It's done, dude. Get over it. Msnicki (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I support this move for two reasons:

1. Linux is a kernel, GNU/Linux is an OS, and this article is on an OS
2. At this point the issue has moved from merely inaccurate to truly misleading. People come here expecting to get information relevant to Android and do not, because Android is not GNU/Linux, it merely uses Linux (the kernel).

¦ Reisio (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The argument that Linux is only a kernel, not an OS, is clearly a personal opinion, nothing more. More important, it's a minority opinion. (Consider WP:COMMONNAME and the table of search results above.) And the claim that people don't find stuff because Android is not GNU/Linux but that somehow they would if this article was named "GNU/Linux" makes no sense for a number of reasons. (a) GNU/Linux redirects here, so I think anyone looking for that will find it, (b) Android is an OS, so apparently you can have a Linux OS without GNU, (c) since Android is not GNU/Linux, it's hard to see how renaming this article would help anyone interested in Android find anything. Msnicki (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

“The argument that Linux is only a kernel, not an OS, is clearly a personal opinion, nothing more.”

A-haha! I must admit I didn’t read about 99% of the preceding, is this the kind of nonsense you people have been spouting? :p Linux is a kernel whether people like to consider it an OS or not. Linux is a kernel, repeat after me, and welcome to reality. I don’t mean to be flippant, but seriously, we have an article on it, and even this article admits the reality in its lede, just before abandoning it for delusion.

“And the claim that people don't find stuff because Android is not GNU/Linux but that somehow they would if this article was named "GNU/Linux" makes no sense for a number of reasons.”

Nobody has (or at least I haven’t) claimed that.

“(b) Android is an OS, so apparently you can have a Linux OS without GNU”

You certainly can, and as soon as this article usefully distinguishes between GNU/Linux and Android, this assertion will matter in this discussion.
If, however, you’re suggesting that instead of this discussion we simply develop GNU/Linux as an article instead of a redirect, and remove the GNU/Linux-specific parts from this article, I have no objection to that (as it is essentially the same as moving).

“(c) since Android is not GNU/Linux, it's hard to see how renaming this article would help anyone interested in Android find anything.”

Is it really? As it is, people who are aware that Android has something to do with Linux come to this article, and assume everything in the article (and even on all of the wiki) dealing with “Linux” applies to Android. On the reference desk (and everywhere else), we get people confused about why Android does not exhibit qualities attributed to “Linux”. In a world where articles were appropriately named, they would abruptly discover that there are multiple types of Linux distributions, and that the primary one for desktops is quite dissimilar to Android.

¦ Reisio (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Support, because the only Linux scenario where it's not GNU operating system is Android, and in this scenario nobody talks about Linux smartphones or Linux tablets (they are Android ones). And more: working with the different GNU variants (GNU/Hurd, GNU/Linux, GNU/NetBSD, GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/OpenSolaris) means working with the same operating system and tools. Linux boots with GNU GRUB, is compiled with GNU tools, is covered with GNU GPL license, and user generally interacts with GNU applications and utilities. Please, don't strengthen general ignorance. --Actiuinformatica (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• That would make sense if reliable sources agreed that any Linux system using GNU tools were to be referred to as GNU/Linux. However, that description is label used by a minority of individuals, not something factual outside of that opinion. If only viewing it through the "pro-GNU/Linux" POV your argument makes sense, but outside of that minority reliable sources overwhelmingly use Linux to describe the subject. (On a side note, your description is also not universal; for example, Linux distros do not necessarily boot with GRUB, though it's usually the default. Syslinux and [LILO (boot loader)|[LILO]] are examples of other bootloaders commonly used.) - SudoGhost 10:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• SudoGhost, you could defend your same argument for Windows article, because matches the same commercial/social reality. I has no sense to have a different article for the real Linux (the kernel) --Actiuinformatica (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• I really don't know what you're trying to say, but even if trying to compare Windows to Linux was relevant, Wikipedia uses what reliable sources say, and even if some argument made sense for Windows as well (?) the fact still remains that reliable sources overwhelmingly refer to the article's subject as Linux. That's why the article's title is what it is. - SudoGhost 10:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, simply because the ONLY definitive thing in all Linux distributions is not the GNU OS, it is the Linux kernal. Really, only GCC is the actual required component and even Macs have that, so by the Supporters logic, OS X should be called GNU/OS X! I very much appreciate and support all the work GNU (note: not FSF who contradict themselves by using copyleft licenses instead of copyFREE licenses, making open-source more 'free' than Free Software) have done and their role in making the Linux distros but Linux is hardly an OS in itself, the distros respectively are the OS. Using 'Linux' as the name for an 'OS' I think is redundant and should be dropped instead using 'Linux' as a name of describing the 'kernal' and the 'family of Operating Systems'. Ads20000 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Support Linux is just the name of a kernel. The GNU project has written much more code than the Linux Kernel project has. This article even says that the Linux kernel only makes up an average of 8% of code in a Linux distribution. The Linux kernel is useless by itself you need programs to go with it. The GNU project has provided those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic12228 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources completely contradict your first sentence. That your opinion is that Linux is "just the name of a kernel" is overwhelmingly contradicted by reliable sources, and Wikipedia uses reliable sources. - SudoGhost 02:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you SudoGhost Linux Torvalds the creator of the linux kernel calls it a kernel see https://github.com/torvalds/linux Sonic12228 (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Half-truths do not make your position any more valid. That Linux is the name of the kernel does not imply that Linux is only used as a name for a kernel. That "the creator of the linux kernel calls it a kernel" doesn't support your comment in the least. What Torvalds actually has said is that "if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general GNU/Linux I think is just ridiculous." GNU itself is also only around 8% of the code depnding on how that's calculated, so that's hardly a compelling reason even on that kind of criteria, and that's even assuming we were to ignore WP:COMMONNAME. - SudoGhost 05:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

SudoGhost you appear to be the minority in this discussion most of the anti-GNU comments come from YOU. People are angry at YOU for unfairly controlling the article. All that comes from YOU one person. Wikipedia is not about satisfying the needs of one person. Wikipedia is about freedom for all not just one person. Also the creator of the GNU project Richard Stallman says you should use GNU/Linux instead of Linux that is a primary source. Primary sources are better than secondary. See here http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html The people who use Linux to refer to the entire operating system are doing it because they are lazy or because they hate the GNU project. Laziness is not a reliable source and hate is not an unbiased source.Sonic12228 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong. SudoGhost is not the minority. We are legion. But we're also pretty darn tired of this same stupid argument by editors with very little experience who insist retreading the same tired arguments, always as if it's the first anyone's ever heard them. None of you seem to listen. What part of WP:COMMONNAME seems too difficult to comprehend? Msnicki (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's not me, it's reliable sources that you're arguing against and reliable sources are what carries weight on Wikipedia. Also secondary sources are greatly preferred on Wikipedia over primary sources, so that fact that Stallman wants to promote his project does not factor into the discussion unless third-party sources support that claim and while a few do, the overwhelming majority do not. Wikipedia is about reflecting reliable sources, not promoting a minority POV. Do they also hate the X window system for not calling it X/GNU/Linux? No, "because they hate the GNU project" is not a valid response and has no bearing on the content of the article because it has no basis in any facts. Until reliable sources support calling the article such, it won't happen on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, but to merely reflect what reliable sources demonstrate and those sources demonstrate that Linux is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME for this article's subject. - SudoGhost 21:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have provided links to reliable sources supporting GNU/Linux. You have provided me with nothing but false talking. Saying "reliable sources" is not enough you have to have evidence.Sonic12228 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

A primary source pushing a POV is not indicative of anything approaching a WP:COMMONNAME. You are more than welcome to read through the talk page archives, as you are not the first to use these arguments and you can find plenty of detailed responses there, but your comment is nothing new and is not going to change the article's title. You are welcome to call that "false talking" but that doesn't make it so. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, and you can see plenty of very detailed discussion in the archives about the nature of those sources. With that, you have been provided with evidence. Short of some new information or some evidence that the nature of sources have suddenly overwhelmingly changed to using GNU/Linux (they haven't), the article's title will not be changed. Unless you have a response that brings something new to the discussion, I will defer you to the archives and previous discussions for any evidence you might be looking for. - SudoGhost 22:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

@SudoGhose Just admit the real reason you are against calling it GNU/Linux is because you have some sort of personal agenda. I have no personal agenda. I am doing this because I feel that everyone has the right to knowledge and what you are doing is effectively trying to edit history and hide.You appear to want the GNU project to not be know. Are you a propitiatory software developer? If so we can easliy say for certain that you have an agenda. Denying the GNU project is as stupid as denying that the holocaust happened or denying that 911 happened. Note that I am NOT comparing the GNU project to 911 or the holocaust the GNU project is the total opposite the gnu project is good. I counted the people who had support in bold not including me right now 54% 7 people support 6 oppose of people support the page move to GNU/Linux. So if more people support the move to GNU/Linux why do you claim it to not be a Common name.

Ad hominem comments are less than convincing. You would do well to argue the merits of the subject at hand instead of making wildly inaccurate speculations about those that disagree with you. If you think that I'm suggesting we "deny the GNU project" then you are missing the point entirely; it's not about giving recognition to those who want it, it's about reflecting what reliable sources say. The number of people that support the move is irrelevant since it is not a matter of voting and counting editors has nothing to do with the common name for the subject. Read WP:COMMONNAME and you will see why I "claim it to not be a Common name". It's because it isn't the common name by any means, and Wikipedia policy determines how articles are titled, not by trying to discredit those that disagree with you with ad hominem comments that have no basis in fact. - SudoGhost 07:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Instead of lobbing more dumb insults, please look at the table I posted on 12 Jan 2013 of Google searches for Linux vs. GNU/Linux and explain how anyone could seriously argue the WP:COMMONNAME could possibly be "GNU/Linux". There's already a redirect page from GNU/Linux to Linux and I personally moved the mention of the naming controversy into the first paragraph to address concerns the naming controversy wasn't being reported sufficiently prominently. That should be enough. You don't have a guidelines-based argument. You don't even have an argument we haven't heard over and over and over. All you've got are your personal opinions and insults. And you wonder why everyone is tired of this nonsense! Msnicki (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have linked to you reliable sources that support the name GNU/Linux you have said reliable sources without providing me any unbiased links supporting using just Linux as the name of an operating system.Sonic12228 (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Have you read the discussion at WP:COMMONNAME? We've given you the link over and over and you still keep repeating that if you've found a few sources that call it GNU/Linux, that that settles the matter. It doesn't! I don't know how to make this more clear to someone who refuses to read the guidelines. "Linux" is preferred over "GNU/Linux" across the board in all manner of sources by one to two orders of magnitude. Instead of repeating yourself yet again, will you kindly read the guidelines? Honestly, if you're not prepared to follow the guidelines like the rest of us, I don't know why you're here except just to grind the same ax. Msnicki (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Support, it is certainly wrong that the "Linux" page does not describe the Linux kernel. In fact, "Linux kernel" should be moved to "Linux". It may well be true that terms like "Linux distribution", "Linux-based system", etc. fall under WP:COMMONNAME, but this seems not to be the case for "Linux" when referring to "the operating system". However, even calling this page "Linux operating system" would be less wrong than calling it "Linux". I repeat that what annoys me most is that when I type "Linux" into Wikipedia I do not reach the page describing the kernel. GoGi 22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources overwhelmingly disagree with what you said, and Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. - SudoGhost 04:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me which overwhelmingly many reliable sources use the term "Linux" to excplicitly refer to "a Unix-like computer operating system" as claimed. I'd also like to clarify that any source using a term like "Linux system", "Linux distribution", etc. actually makes a case for having the kernel at "Linux" because in those cases "Linux" is clearly meant to be a kernel and not a Unix-like computer operating system. I do not know whether moving this page to "GNU/Linux" is the correct solution, it might as well be moved to "Linux system", "Linux-based operating system" or similar. It is, however, certainly the case that this page belongs to the kernel. GoGi 11:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources have already been discussed at length on the talk page and in the talk page archives, as have the WP:COMMONNAME and both support the current topic at the current title. - SudoGhost 13:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please refer to the table of search results I posted earlier in this section. (Per WP:COMMONNAME, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data".) "Linux" outnumbers "GNU/Linux" by one to two orders of magnitude across all types of sources. It's not even close. Msnicki (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that "Linux" is more common than "GNU/Linux" as term. But I do not agree that the term "Linux" refers more often to "a Unix-like computer operating system" than to "an operating system kernel". In fact, when I type "Linux" into Google I get the impression that most meaningful sources actually refer to the kernel. GoGi (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

We all have opinions and "impressions". For your claim to be correct, something like 13 out of 14 to as many as 251 out of 252 of those articles using the term Linux would have to be talking only about the kernel, not about Linux as a system. My impression is that's simply preposterous. Find some actual data to support your claim and then let's talk. Msnicki (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It occurs to me add (even though someone has probably already said this somewhere in the archives): There's an actual reason why we decide based on WP:COMMONNAME that we can trace to our Five Pilars. "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." By neutral, we mean, among other things, that we will "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views," Basically, what that means is we do not settle disputes when reporting them. We never say who's right. We simply report the views giving prominence that "adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views". The WP:COMMONNAME guideline derives straight from that. It asks us to go with whatever the name most sources use, regardless of what any of us personally thinks is the better name for whatever other reason we might offer. "Relative levels of support for those views" trumps pretty much everything else. So if you want to argue for "GNU/Linux", you really need to show that that's the name sources use more often, not anything else. Msnicki (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I do not argue for "GNU/Linux" at all. GoGi (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you got me. What did you think it meant to !vote support? Msnicki (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"I open a votation in favour of the change of the article's title to an expression containing the word GNU, such as GNU/Linux, or equally for the title Linux-based Operating Systems." - However, I do not know whether a vote for two alternatives can have a useful outcome at all. Also to which 14 or 525 articles do you refer? I have looked over the sources referenced in this article, and the majority refer to the kernel. Of course, there are also a few where it is clear that the plain term "Linux" refers to something that is a Unix-like operating system. Moreover, this article talks about "a Unix-like computer operating system" while the "Linux kernel" article talks about "the Linux family of Unix-like operating systems". Are these supposed to be the same thing? GoGi (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Only you know what your !vote meant. Msnicki (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Support for renaming this article to "Linux-based operating systems", rewriting it to better suite this function (it should cover also OpenBSD/Linux, Syllable Server, Chromium OS, BusyBox/Linux etc. and should have comparison section with table containing all of Linux-based systems (not their distros like Fedora (GNU/Linux distro) or Replicant (Android distro))), and creating separate article about GNU/Linux titled "GNU/Linux", which would cover only GNU/Linux, not Android etc. --Uniwersalista (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The WP:COMMONNAME guideline already covers this. The WP:CONSENSUS from reliable sources make it clear that Linux is common vernacular for the operating system, not just the kernel. Please refer to Talk:Linux/Name, as this discussion has been retreaded on multiple occasions. Miranda Streeter (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Support The operating system common in desktops is the GNU OS, with Linux kernel being made by a third party. So the correct name is GNU+Linux or GNU/Linux or whatever operator you want to use join the two words. GNU existed some years before Linux appeared on the net (as the article says), and they had their own kernel, Hurd, which would have been used if Linux hadn't been ready. An operating system is fundamentally composed of a kernel plus the API necessary to access it and some minimal initial process from which to start the rest of the system. The most common kernel+extras which are used in a system having as a kernel the Linux kernel, is Linux+GNU libc or derivatives + majority of GNU binutils + majority of GNU coreutils from the GNU OS project, although the fundamental part is GNU libc. So... GNU/Linux is the name of the commonly (and erroneously) named Linux operative system. Linux is the kernel part, not the whole operative system on which the rest of user space stands (X server, desktop environment, other processes, etc.). There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia which have a different name than that used commonly. So Wikipedia is here to predicate with correctness too and to give trustful information. It's not an opposed view, it's just the right thing. The same happen with Windows. Windows is a commercial name for a Microsoft operating system having NT as the kernel with the Windows API for accessing that NT kernel. Finally, I would name this article as "Linux-based operating systems" and have a minimal description of all of them, creating articles for GNU/Linux, Android, Replicant, OpenBSD/Linux, Chromium OS and the like. Maybe BusyBox/Linux too due to its completely lack of GNU software except the Linux API (GNU libc). You know, GNU/Linux distributions like OpenSUSE are not like busybox+linux based distributions. Describing Linux operative system as this article does confuses people, because you think you can use the same API on all those variants (Desktop, embedded, server, etc.) when you can only really depend on using the same API if you talk about GNU/Linux, or that you can work . All those variants have great differences from the user perspective. The user interface section is just laughable. This article is a mix of things without any sense at all. 3/4 parts of the article is talking about GNU/Linux. Even the Linux distributions comparison should be renamed to GNU/Linux distributions comparison. Filiprino (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The "correct" name is irrelevant; the most commonly used name is the title, not the official/correct/technical name. On top of that, GNU/Linux is not the "correct" name, it's a name used by a minority of individuals, applied long after Linux became a thing. Everything you just said is only true if you look at this topic from a minority POV and disregard what reliable sources say. - Aoidh (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The correct name is relevant, the most commonly used name is not the title. The title is the correct name. GNU Linux is not a name used by a minority of individuals, but it's the name that describes the majority of Linux-based operating systems, applied since the conception of the GNU OS with Linux kernel. Everything you might think against that is a distorted vision of reality and disregard what an Operating System really is basing your POV in what press says. So, even if you want to show Wikipedia's rules on how to write titles, you also have that titles must be precise and unambigous. Filiprino (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No, the most commonly used name is the title, that's how it works on Wikipedia. Until GNU/Linux becomes the most commonly used name, there's not much cause to rename the article, especially because GNU/Linux being correct is nothing more than an opinion, not a fact and hardly "applied since the conception". The title is precise and unambiguous, given that this article is so overwhelmingly the primary topic; citing WP:NATURAL doesn't work for this article given that it's well and beyond the primary topic. Claiming that anything other than your opinion is "a distorted vision of reality" is irrelevant; it's what you can show that matters, not what your opinion on what is true. - Aoidh (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

GNU Linux being correct is not an opinion. Linux being an operating system is. Only people without knowledge or people saying Linux because that's what people say would let this article to exist and not move it to Linux-based Operating Systems. And, you talk about what I can show is that matters, so well, I can show you that the propietaries of the GNU OS call this GNU Linux. Do you think that's a phalacy? Go ahead but Wikipedia is collaborating in creating confusion and making people belive that Android is the same as GNU Linux, or that even Android is just GNU OS with a modified Linux kernel. There's also a lot of good articles talking about GNU Linux and also a lot of results from search engines showing that GNU Linux is also a common form of refering to what this article mainly describes. Filiprino (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that the "My opinion is fact, and anyone who disagrees with me just don't know what they're talking about" is a fallacy. Your opinion is just an opinion, and not a commonly accepted one, so any argument that is formed from the assumption that GNU/Linux is the only possible descriptor for the article's subject is fundamentally flawed. Reliable sources contradict your opinion, and Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. If you want Wikipedia to change the article's title, then get reliable sources to reflect what you're wanting because Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, it does not dictate its own reality based on what people argue. - Aoidh (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no reliable sources stating what this article say. The reliable sources which state GNU/Linux as the correct name have already been listed: search results with millions of results, thousand hundred of results, etc. That shows that GNU Linux is also very common and WP:NATURAL supports using the more precise name, so this article should be moved to GNU/Linux and a new article named Linux-based Operating Systems should be created, or modify this article to talk about the whole thing regarding Linux (different operating systems based on the kernel, although there's already a page for that: Linux_(kernel)). Saying that it's my opinion is just a way to dismiss the facts. Filiprino (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Filiprino. It's doesn't work that way and the only reason you think it does is because you're a new editor who's unfamiliar with the guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a new editor and I'm more familiar with the guidelines than a new editor would, I just read them and apply them. I thought this was an encyclopedia. There's a whole lot of articles describing and naming correctly things but most of the content of this article can't be moved to a "GNU Linux" article and talk on this article about Linux-based operating systems. This defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia. As it is now, this article is not precise. Linux is a kernel and is being used by the GNU OS, Android, BusyBox, Replicant, OpenWrt, etc. Clearly here we have a case of inconsistency and this should be corrected. The other Linux-based operating systems pages describe what they're composed of: Linux, glibc/bionic/µlibc/... GNU userland/busybox/Android userland/..., so they clearly state a different thing than it's being stated here, only a little subsection (embedded devices) which is also incorrect because it talks about operating systems with "more or less modified kernel", the matter is that the kernel is not the only modified part of those OSes. Clearly there're wrong things here. Filiprino (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

With only 19 edits so far and none outside of article or talk space, you are a very new editor. Msnicki (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If that's all you have to say, good. I would like to add that in Spanish Wikipedia the article is correctly named: es:GNU/Linux, and Linux is described as a kernel, with a single page dedicated to it (appart from Linux-libre) es:Linux_(desambiguación). Filiprino (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What the Spanish Wikipedia calls its articles is irrelevant; it's a different project that forms its own consensus. More importantly, it uses (presumably) the most common name for a subject in Spanish. The English Wikipedia uses the most common name for a subject in English. GNU/Linux does appear to be used much, much more commonly in Spanish reliable sources than in English, where it is seldom used at all. That's why this article has a different name than in the Spanish Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm accostumed to just let go the flaws in Wikipedia, both in Spanish and English, although in terms of computer science and software Spanish Wikipedia is more prone to errors (much more, lacks a lot of rigour). This debacle on English Wikipedia just surprises me. I've already stated what is an operating system and you can go to Operating_system and see that GNU/Linux is stated there too, and there's a section named Linux and GNU too, which incorrectly says "Linux (or GNU/Linux)". Simply said: there are so much variants of Linux-based operating systems that refering to GNU Linux as just Linux is simply erroneus. Trends are not a way to justify the naming of an article. So if you also do not consider other articles of Wikipedia which are supported by reliable sources as reliable information, how you pretend I present to you facts and also sources which could be considered reliable by your POV. Filiprino (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. As FSF says in a FAQ: "Why did you wait so long before asking people to use the name GNU/Linux? Actually we didn't. We began talking privately with developers and distributors about this in 1994, and made a more public campaign in 1996. We will continue for as long as it's necessary."[1] Campaign as hard as you like, guys, but Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Please leave us alone until after the campaign has succeeded. --Nigelj (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. As my Ubuntu Operating System tells me, I'm using GNU/Linux:

~$ uname -o

GNU/Linux

And every GNU/Linux distribution will tell you the same.

About what is this article?

I'm concerned in this problem: About what is this article?

• 1) If this article is about Linux (kernel of course), why we have Linux kernel article?
• 2) If this article is not about Linux (kernel), but GNU/Linux, why there are Linux version numbers in infobox? These are kernel version numbers! GNU/Linux as a whole doesn't have version numbers, because there is no official vendor of GNU/Linux but distro vendors.
• 3) If this article is about Linux (kernel), why there are so many information, that aren't strictly connected with the kernel topic?
• 4) If this article is not about Linux (kernel), but GNU/Linux, why there is section (Embedded devices), which contains information about Android, which is not GNU/Linux, but independent OS using Linux?
• 5) If this article is about GNU/Linux, why there are mentioned in infobox so many architectures, where GNU/Linux probably doesn't run, because there are no distributions, which support such architectures? One probably can run BusyBox/Linux or something similar on these architectures.
• 6) If this article is about Linux-based systems in general (GNU/Linux, OpenBSD/Linux Starch, Android, Firefox OS, Sailfish OS, MeeGo, Syllable Server, Plan 9/Linux Glendix, BusyBox/Linux and so on), where is article about GNU/Linux but not about GNU/Linux naming controversy in particular?
• 7) If there is no article about GNU/Linux but not about GNU/Linux naming controversy in particular in Wikipedia, why don't move to "GNU/Linux" and modify this article and make separate article titled "Linux-based operating systems"?
• 8) If this article is about Linux (kernel), why it states, that defining component of Linux is Linux?
• 9) If this article is about Linux (kernel), why it provides information about userspace of GNU/Linux while not explicitly telling, that it mentions userspace of GNU/Linux?
• 10) If this article is about Linux (kernel), why it lies, telling that FSF wants Linux (kernel) be named GNU/Linux?
• 11) If this article is about GNU/Linux, why its title is "Linux"?

These are questions made by very confused reader.

For me this article isn't good in fitting in any role.

• It isn't good in being an article about GNU/Linux, because it uses wrong name for this operating system, contains information specific only for Linux and contains information about other operating systems.
• It isn't good in being an article about Linux. Obviously (everybody in the world knows that, it's obvious as the fact that Earth is placed in the Milky Way) Linux is a kernel. It is that because it contains many information about GNU/Linux, desktop environments, which can be used in this system, and other topics not specific to Linux.
• It isn't good in being an article about Linux-based operating systems, because it doesn't contain as much information about all of Linux-based operating systems as needed. It doesn't compare them, doesn't specify differences in userspace software in these systems, like C library, file utilities, text utilities, shells, start and poweroff scripts, doesn't specify common elements in userspace for these systems. Maybe some of them have the same file utilities?

What wikipedians want this article to be? Do they want it to be great source of knowledge, or confusing article full of claptrap? --Uniwersalista (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an article about the operating system commonly known as Linux. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel. Msnicki (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. So i suppose, that now we already know (if you're right), that this is article about GNU/Linux. So questions 2), 4), 5) and 11) are still actual. Moreover, problems, which i had defined under my questions, are also still actual. They are actual, because this article, although is about GNU/Linux, still contains information, which belong to Linux (kernel) or Linux-based systems topics.--Uniwersalista (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please. Tell me we're not going to go through yet another stupid, long-winded argument with yet another newbie editor with an ax to grind who can't be bothered to read either the discussion earlier on this page or the guidelines discussion at WP:COMMONNAME. This article is about Linux because that's what the vast majority of reliable sources call it. They do not call it GNU/Linux. Msnicki (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK man. Let it be Linux although it's stupid. But if this article is about GNU/Linux, which you call Linux, so why there are information specific to Linux (kernel), which are showed as information about GNU/Linux called Linux as a whole? Why there are Android or webOS portrayed as examples of GNU/Linux called Linux in embedded devices? They aren't GNU/Linux called Linux. They are non-GNU/Linux operating systems with Linux as kernel. This shows, that people don't know about what they exactly write. "Linux" in their minds is completely unstructured term, which means in real nothing. By the way it's an example how calling GNU/Linux "Linux" leads to mistakes in understanding, what in fact GNU/Linux, which you call Linux, is. This article is definitly misleading. Or it's just not about GNU/Linux called Linux, but about Linux-based operating systems in general, which leads to conclusion, that it should be moved to "Linux-based operating systems" and rewritten to better show variety of Linux-based systems and to compare their technical details, which comparison this article lacks. If intention of this article wasn't to be a general overview of Linux-based systems, but to be an article about GNU/Linux called Linux, then we have very big mistake, which should never have place in encyclopedia. Mixing up GNU/Linux (which is called by you and other people Linux), Android and webOS and stating, that article intention isn't to be about Linux-based systems in general, is unacceptable in encyclopedia. So what was the intention of this article?! I don't know. Or we can move this article to "GNU/Linux, Android and webOS" (or if you really prefer to name GNU/Linux "Linux" - "Linux, Android and webOS"). Of course we can do nothing and still think, that Wikipedia is reliable encyclopedia. And don't name me "newbie editor". I have account on Wikipedia and sometimes edit minor things, but I'm mostly READER, so my opinion is very important. --Uniwersalista (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, reliable sources are very important, not personal opinions. This article reflects what reliable sources say. Your argument is based on the understanding that GNU/Linux is the uncontested name of the subject, when the reality is that GNU/Linux is nothing more than a minority POV name not accepted by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. - SudoGhost 19:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Look man, forget for a while about GNU/Linux name (but not about GNU/Linux as an object). The fact that you name GNU/Linux "Linux" is the least important here (although still in fact very important). You can name it "Linux". I address bigger problem, that one can't be sure about what is this article.

• 1) If this article is about GNU/Linux (okay, name it "Linux"!), so what do there Android and webOS? Mixing up GNU/Linux (okay, name it "Linux"!), Android and webOS is a mistake.
• 2) If the intention of this article is to be an overview of Linux-based systems, so title of this article should be changed to "Linux-based operating systems" and it should be rewritten, because this overview doesn't contain comparison of such systems and is GNU/Linux-centric. And separate article should be written only about GNU/Linux (okay, name it "Linux"!), as it is in case of Android, webOS, Firefox OS and so on (these systems have separate articles). --Uniwersalista (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:COMMONNAME or any of the discussion earlier on the page? If not, why not? Msnicki (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I forgot about GNU/Linux name. And please do the same. I already don't want to fight for that, because I know, that I will loss. Now the only thing I want is to investigate, if this article is about GNU/Linux (name it like you want, I can't name what I have in my mind in different manner), or not, and if not, we need separate article about GNU/Linux, like we need separate article about Android (and we have). --Uniwersalista (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) The article discusses the relationship between Android and Linux, and the relationship between webOS and Linux, because reliable sources do. (2) Because this is a summary-style article, it covers and summarizes aspects of Linux including the Linux kernel, Linux distributions, and Linux-powered devices. Those articles already exist; this one provides a general overview that encompasses the entire subject. - SudoGhost 20:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, now, that I read what you wrote (that this is "summary style" article), I know some things:

• 1) This article is "about everything and about nothing", although it is mostly GNU/Linux-centric.
• 2) This article is not about Linux (it is not about kernel of Linux-based systems).
• 3) Android, webOS Firefox OS deserve separate article in Wikipedia.
• 4) GNU/Linux (or "Linux" if you want) doesn't deserve separate article in Wikipedia, despite it strongly differs from Android, webOS, Firefox OS and so on. The only thing one can do is to assume that Desktop Linux or Linux distributions are the articles, which refer to GNU/Linux (or "Linux"). But GNU/Linux runs not only on desktops, so we have little problem still. And GNU/Linux is not only one Linux-based system, which runs on desktops. And Linux distributions article refers not only to GNU/Linux. --Uniwersalista (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly that we shouldn't have a separate article on Linux, you are welcome to AfD it, citing the reasons you've given. You will lose. There are bazillions of reliable sources establishing the notability of this topic, exactly as it's presented in this article. Msnicki (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If you mean GNU/Linux, writing Linux, no, I don't. You didn't understand me. I do feel exactly something opposite: we should have a separate article about "Linux" (GNU/Linux), but we don't have. At least this article isn't what we should have. Because it is simply about don't know what. --Uniwersalista (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I have no idea what your point is except that it still sounds like you'd be happy with the content of this article if only the title was GNU/Linux. But reliable sources and WP:COMMONNAME don't support that. What else? Msnicki (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's simple. I know, that most people call GNU/Linux "Linux". So if i had to guess about what this article is, I would say, that about GNU/Linux. Uuuu... Wait! But i can read there about Android etc... And Wikipedia already has "Linux kernel" article... Android and other Linux-based systems have their own articles... So WTF?! Where's article about GNU/Linux, if this article isn't about GNU/Linux?! And WTH is this article about?! Disclaimer: We assume, that title of this article doesn't matter. --Uniwersalista (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It's still impossible to guess what you want, except to complain vaguely that you don't like the article because you don't know what it's about -- a complaint I'm pretty sure would go away if only the title was GNU/Linux, which isn't happening for the reasons stated (over and over). GNU/Linux already redirects to Linux and the naming controversy is mentioned in the lede paragraph. What else are you asking? I have no idea. Msnicki (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I ask for these things:

• 1) Since I think Wikipedia needs article about GNU/Linux (no matter what title this article would have: "GNU/Linux" or "Linux"), this article should be only about GNU/Linux. That means no text about Android, webOS and other non-GNU/Linux mobile toys (of course there are GNU/Linux mobile systems in general, but Android, webOS, Firefox OS and similar toys don't belong to GNU/Linux family), at least no text, which mislead people, telling, that Android, webOS etc belong to GNU/Linux family of operating systems (of course they do belong to Linux-based family of operating systems).
• 2) I postulate, that Wikipedia should have, separate from this, article titled "Linux-based operating systems", which would contain comparison of technical details of systems in this family. There would go GNU/Linux, Google Chrome OS, Syllable Server, Android, Firefox OS, webOS and other systems. This article would summarize in more detailed and technical manner various operating systems, which utilizes Linux as their kernel. We already have many articles "Comparison of...", which are useful encyclopedic tools.

I DON'T ask for this thing, because world has more serious problems, and if I could change whole society, I would rather teach people about Human Rights, than about semantic correctness and avoiding of claptrap:

• Moving "Linux" article to "GNU/Linux".

Moreover, as long as this article isn't strictly about GNU/Linux, such moving would be nonsense. --Uniwersalista (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) This article is about "Linux", as the overwhelming majority of reliable sources understand the term. (2) If you think we need a new article on anything, WP:BEBOLD and go write it. Msnicki (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you have expressed clearly what you want. The confusion comes from denying the term "GNU/Linux" and calling it "Linux", and then saying that any operating system based on Linux is Linux. There is a family of operating systems based on Linux which share common architectural features, using some components from the GNU project, and to which Android (among others) does not belong; and this family is controversially called "GNU/Linux". Can we agree on that? Uniwersalista suggests having an article on this family of operating systems.

I'll suggest some reasons why not. (a) There is already Linux distribution. (However, maybe that article is only about the distribution projects themselves and not any of the software which they comprise.) (b) Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, Slackware, Linux Mint etc. do not form a "natural group" - if so, why? Count Truthstein (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ubuntu, Debian (only GNU/Linux of course), Fedora, Gentoo (not any of Gentoo/Alts, not GNU/Hurd), Slackware, Linux Mint etc. do form a natural subset in "Linux-based OS-es" set, because they contain Linux as their kernel and minimal set of userspace OS utilities from GNU/Hurd (or simply GNU) operating system, which are required to make a computer something more than very big brick. This subset is "GNU/Linux family of operating systems". To run a computer, you must have at least very poor text operating system, such as GNU/Linux. This minimal requirements define an operating system, if this operating system is modular (and other features, like windowing system and desktop are optional modules), as UNIX or UNIX-like usually is. If an operating system is non-free monolith, like Windows, we have different situation.

• Why not Linux distribution article as an article about Linux-based operating systems? Because if so, there will be no article about GNU/Linux distros. And we usually don't call webOS, Android, GNU/Linux, Firefox OS etc. ""Linux" distros" (which means "GNU/Linux distros"). Linux-based systems is higher level of abstraction than distros of any particular Linux-based system, for example than Android distros (CyanogenMod, Replicant) or than GNU/Linux distros.
• Separate problem is that Linux distribution is as misleading as Linux, because I suppose it is about GNU/Linux distros, and it contains information about Android. We usually don't call Android a GNU/Linux distro (or "Linux" distro, if "Linux" means GNU/Linux).

--Uniwersalista (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This article serves as a general summary of what "Linux" is, as reliable sources describe it. It encompasses the distros, the kernel, all of it. These details have further, more detailed articles per WP:SUMMARY. There is already an article called Linux distribution that covers that subject in more detail. This article cannot be titled "Linux distribution" because is covers aspects that have nothing to do with the distros, and we can't arbitrarily limit the scope of an article when reliable sources do not. We don't call Android a GNU/Linux distro because it isn't, even Stallman says as much. Reliable sources often refer to it as "Linux" in some way, so it would be inappropriate to omit that from the article. Should this article be called GNU/Linux? No, because reliable sources refer to it as Linux, and the article also encompasses subjects that even "GNU/Linux advocates" such as Richard Stallman point out have nothing to do with GNU or their definition of GNU/Linux. The same reason applies to calling it "Linux distribution", and such an article already exists to cover that subject in more detail than this general overall article. - SudoGhost 22:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. Now we can make some conclusions:

• This article (Linux) is a not well-written summary about Linux-based systems in general. For example it doesn't have technical comparison of all of these systems without exceptions (it doesn't mention for example OpenBSD/Linux Starch and Syllable Server). It is GNU/Linux-centric. I know, that you will write something like "Reliable sources omits OpenBSD/Linux and Syllable Server and are GNU/Linux-centric while being silent about GNU/Linux, and name all of those "Linux" while not making distinction between various Linux-based systems; so do this article.". But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and have to provide knowledge, not people's mistakes and delusions.
• There is no article about GNU/Linux in Wikipedia.
• But there are articles about Android, webOS, Firefox OS, Google Chrome OS. This is inconsistent. There's no reason, why GNU/Linux doesn't have separate article (this article of course could have name "Linux", if you prefer [but what name would Linux article have then?!]).
• There is an article called GNU/Linux naming controversy, which is only about controversy.
• In Wikipedia there is an article called Linux distribution, which covers mainly GNU/Linux distros and Android, making no distinction between higher level (Linux-based systems) and lower level (distributions of every of those systems). If this article is about GNU/Linux, Android must not be there and its title makes inconsistency, because Linux article already names all of Linux-based OS-es "Linux", so this name can't be used to refer to GNU/Linux only. And "Linux distribution" can't be a name for GNU/Linux, because:

1) The fact that a product is a distribution of Linux based system rather than a standalone Linux-based system doesn't make it GNU/Linux distro.

2) There are other Linux-based systems, which have distributions, at least Android.

• In Wikipedia there is an article called Comparison of Linux distributions, which mentions Chrome OS, of which is controversial, if it belongs to GNU/Linux family. But this article only compares distros and can't be treated like a general article about GNU/Linux.
• In Wikipedia there is an article called Desktop Linux, which is rather about desktop use of GNU/Linux, about desktop environments an so on, than about GNU/Linux. And we know, that GNU/Linux is used not only on dekstops. And we know, that GNU/Linux is not only desktop Linux-based system.
• We can't treat Wikipedia as a reliable source of knowledge in case of GNU/Linux. Wikipedia can give us only a bunch of opinions and beliefs commonly shared in society by majority of people, who usually don't know anything about this topic or are just too sloppy to refer to their knowledge in scientific consistent manner. Hmmm... Is Wikipedia really an encyclopedia?...

I support decision, that Linux was removed from "Engineering and technology good articles".

--Uniwersalista (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

GNU/Linux does not have a separate article because it's not a thing, it's nothing more than a fringe name pushed by a minority of individuals and rejected by the majority of the Linux community and reliable sources. That's the only thing notable about it, and thus there's an article that covers that name. There's nothing inconsistent about using reliable sources to dictate content. - SudoGhost 15:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Ubuntu, Debian (only GNU/Linux of course), Fedora, Gentoo (not any of Gentoo/Alts, not GNU/Hurd), Slackware, Linux Mint etc. do form a natural subset in "Linux-based OS-es" set" - I agree with this. There are two cases, depending on whether you agree with this:

* They are not a natural subset. In this case there is no difference between the Linux and Linux kernel articles, if the only defining characteristic of Linux is that it uses the Linux kernel. These two articles should be merged. In fact, much of the article is already about the Linux kernel, and not some larger system. The infobox, for example, with the Tux logo (originated in the kernel project), claim that it was first released in 1991 (it was the kernel which was released in 1991), the latest release number (in fact, the latest release number of the kernel, not of some larger system), and so on. Whatever the merged article is called (probably Linux), it would cover all uses of the Linux kernel. The Wikipedia policy page WP:SUMMARY has often been adduced as a counter-argument to merging these pages, but I do not see the relevance.

* They are a natural grouping. Then should the Linux article cover this grouping? Either it should, in which case Android and other OS's are outside the scope of this article (and there should still be a note to say that these other OS's are still sometimes referred to as Linux, because that is what some sources say); or if not, they would need their own article. But what is that article to be called? Perhaps we could have an article GNU/Linux which starts off with something like "GNU/Linux is a controversial term posited by the GNU project which refers to a group of operating systems using the Linux kernel and other core operating system components developed as part of the GNU project." We would need sources to describe what exactly this term covered. Perhaps the existing article GNU/Linux_naming_controversy could be used. Count Truthstein (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Unix Operating System

The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux is wrong. The Unix Operating System was first written in PDP then later re-written in C. Please fix this. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarquazi (talk • contribs) 23:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• The article is fine. To quote the UNIX authors "Early versions of the operating system were written in assembly language, but during the summer of 1973, it was rewritten in C." source: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/cacm.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.46.227 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was originally written on a PDP-7 in the "B" language (not assembler), then ported to PDP-11, then the "C" was written for the PDP-11, then UNIX was recompiled in C. Note that C (and B) have many characteristics drawn from respective hardware; reminding me of an assembler for a "VM". Shjacks45 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Source Model Discussion

I'd like to touch on a point raised by Ziiike: the Linux kernel is not "free and open source" since it includes software without the source code. Specifically, plenty of non-free firmware is included into the official git repository git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git and the fact that it's not free is documented in firmware/WHENCE . Consequently, I propose we change the Source Model to at least "mostly free and open source with some non-free components" or "... firmware". melikamp (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Firmware? Definition is hardware based software like motherboard bios or PXE boot ROM on a network card. Perhaps you should clarify since it causes your post to make no sense. The Linux kernel team is quite strict about not accepting proprietary drivers or those containing proprietary code, however many distributions e.g. Novell/IBM SUSE contain FOSS non-GPL code. Are you confusing GPL and FOSS (e.g. Apache license code)? Shjacks45 (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

FSF's reason for "GNU/Linux"

In the opening paragraph:

Since the C compiler that builds Linux and the main supporting user space system tools and libraries originated in the GNU Project, initiated in 1983 by Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation prefers the name GNU/Linux when these tools and libraries are used.

It is true that the FSF prefers the name "GNU/Linux", but the reason cited here is completely inaccurate. The FSF's position, and why they call the system "GNU/Linux", is that the system is ultimately a variant of the GNU operating system, not because the "tools and libraries" of GNU are used and not because "the C compiler [of GNU]... builds Linux" (how the Linux kernel is made has nothing to do with their position). It ought to say something more like:

Because it considers Linux to be basically the GNU system with the Linux kernel added, the Free Software Foundation prefers the name "GNU/Linux" when referring to the operating system as a whole.

This sentence reflects why the FSF calls the system "GNU/Linux" much more accurately.

Sources: [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.63.112 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, something more like this:

Because it considers Linux to be a variant of the GNU operating system, the Free Software Foundation prefers the name GNU/Linux when referring to the operating system as a whole.

108.70.63.112 (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Linux core

Hi, folks. As can be seen in this: Template:GNU or this List of GNU packages article. the GNU Project has made considerable contribution to the pool of available free and open-source software, among which there are a couple of strategical ones, i.e. unique and/or hard to replace. The actual question is, how much of the software contained in a "typical" Linux installation is contributed by the GNU project:

1. GNU C Library (1.000.000 lines of finest C code), (despite Ulrich Drepper's argument with Stallman, this is GNU software)
2. GNU Compiler Collection for diverse programming languages and several instruction sets;
3. GNU build system
4. GNU Find Utilities, there is BusyBox, which is non-GNU (but also GPLv2)
5. GNU Core Utilities
6. GNU Binutils
7. GNU Debugger — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotXW (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
8. GNU GRUB, there is/was LILO (boot loader)
9. Bash (Unix shell)
10. GNOME, the desktop environment though I am not sure how much GNU is in there
11. ...

Not GNU are

• Clang+LLVM (pushed hard by Qualcomm, Apple Inc., Google Inc. et al., read Phoronix)
• the entire X Window System, the implementation of Wayland, Mesa 3D, Free and open-source device drivers: graphics, Comparison of open-source wireless drivers, etc.
• the entire KDE Software Compilation, most Qt-based software, etc.
• diverse Template:Open-source video games

As the adoption rate of the Linux operating system rises, the percentage of users who care if the code of the compiled and packages software they are using is available under some free license, dwindles. The share of those who care whether the software is developed by the KDE project, by some professor in Bangalore, by an individual (e.g. Hans Reiser) or by the GNU project, may be much much much lower. So, the probably is er high, that the day-to-day user's don't care.

The question is whether we, the Wikipedia contributors (and contributor wannabes and querulous person and random passers-by and ...), deem the contribution of the GNU Project big enough or strategical enough or simply important enough (they did kind of lay the cornerstone, and where lacking a (GPL'ed?) kernel), to talk about GNU/Linux instead of Linux when we refer to the entire operating system based on the Linux kernel. As I see it, this is only about giving credit. And I do not mind to give them credit for their achievements, which in case of the GNU Project is much more then just contributing code.

Additionally to contributing (valuable) code since long before Google Inc. existed, the FSF and the GNU project do have a couple of valid arguments. However, I've had enough of the whole argy-bargy. I do not care, how the Wikipedia refers to "it". But I would like some documentation... ;-)

For example, while working on File:LAMP software bundle.svg I pondered whether to include the GNU C Library (and or uClibc, dietlibc, ..) or the GNU Core Utilities or systemd. I decided against it, because I wanted the space to rather additionally mention Snort or RRDtool or other useful packages available on top of the Linux core.

Instead of wasting more time arguing, I would rather create another article ...hahaha... called Linux core and describe there, what else besides the Linux kernel, is part of such a Linux core. Maybe OpenWrt or Linux From Scratch could assist in creating and grooming such an article, which would be technical in nature. The basic question is, what do Router-Linux, Server-Linux, LAMP-Linux, Dekstop-Linux and Mobile-Linux have in common besides the Linux kernel. When looking at Android, it relies on libbionic instead of the glibc, and probably BusyBox, probably not much. When looking at the mer-based stuff that is about to be distributed soon or at Tizen, probably a little more. But what? ScotXW (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Murky Origins of Linux & "Lions' Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition, with Source Code"

No mention of this seminal book. Although the early Linux distributions (e.g. kernel v .91) used the Minix file system, it is obvious from examining the code that different coding philosophy was used. As well as public posts between Torvalds and Tannenbaum denying the connection. I would like to note that the early Linux kernels had bugs in common with Unix v6 whose source code was available in Lions' Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition, with Source Code, used by many schools etc. to teach Unix. As an "inspiration" (this wiki notes Minix) to not mention this text would be a sin. Shjacks45 (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)