Talk:Linux

network transparency & X window system

Jus thought I'd mention something a casual reader (I) saw: In the "User Interface" section, "Most popular user interfaces are based on the X Window System, often simply called "X". It provides network transparency and permits a graphical application running on one system to be displayed on another where a user may interact with the application.[56]" (emphasis added)

clicking on network transparency brings you to an article where the second line claims it is incorrect to speak of the X window system in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cd1207 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! That's a very good point; went ahead and clarified both articles (edit #1, edit #2), please check them out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

GNU and me too

The lead pgraph says The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel [...], also misread "The defining component of an OS is the kernel". This page is "Linux" the computer OS. Let the page Linux kernel say "The Linux kernel is a Unix-like operating system kernel". Also it is misread "The Linux kernel is the Linux kernel" or "The Linux distribution is defined by the kernel", both of which are misleading.

For a lead? For a grandmother hearing "Linux", Linux should mean the entire distribution, (not just the kernel), because it will mean what she can have instead of Windows XP. "Linux kernel" is used elsewhere, under the lead, in the body. Proposed:

A Linux distribution is a software stack configured through a Linux kernel. A distribution of Linux is largely documentated and support by the GNU project. .

It is not for nothing that the title GNU/Linux is an immortal redirect title to this article. GNU should be mentioned definitively. Thanks. — CpiralCpiral 23:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I won't revert you again – I'll leave that someone else, confident there probably will be someone else – but I really don't think posting this cryptic proposal (which, btw, doesn't match what you actually did), waiting 2 days and getting no response constitutes discussion indicating you have consensus support. Msnicki (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I've reverted the edit for a few reasons. As I mentioned in my edit summary, "A distribution of Linux is largely documented and support by the GNU project." makes no sense. I also disagree with Cpiral's assessment of how the current wording reads; I'm not seeing how it could be construed to read "The Linux kernel is the Linux kernel." I'm also not sure what Cpiral is trying to say about the redirect; it is [WP:NOTFINISH|neither immortal]] nor is it a "title", it's a redirect. - Aoidh (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is a distribution supported? Documented? If so then a distribution is documented and supported by some project.
  • If, as it now says, The defining component of Linux is the kernel [the Linux kernel], then it logically follows that "The defining component of Linux is the Linux Kernel". But the metalanguage of this article is about a distribution, is about a computer system, as defined by the analysis of the situation into hardware, user, and default software between the two. Thus the proposed "Linux is defined by a software stack configured through a Linux kernel" and "Linux is largely documented and support by the GNU project."
  • The search results page specialized search box says "There is a page named "GNU/Linux" on Wikipedia". To the search engine, if not the navigation command from a user who types "GNU/Linux", "GNU/Linux" is a title of a page on Wikipedia.

There's Linux as a "look and feel". Opposed there's Linux as a developer's or hobbyists kernel-modifications. The two are somewhat opposed as defines an audience.

The defining component of Linux, our lead now says, is the kernel. Well it depends on who is doing the component analysis. It depends on the audience including the GNU/Linux seekers. To GNU, and to me, the components are the computer, the user, and the look and feel of the system between them. The key component here, per my audience-analysis, being "the system". The audience for this article is the user, and the subject for this article is "the system". The audience is not interested in how a kernel defines Linux.

What defines Linux for our audience?

• The lead depicts Linux running on a supercomputer. (I think supercomputers are defined elsewhere by key hardware components.) "Linux runs supercomputers." Not bad, sounds great. Who cares what version and kernel mods might have taken place when all they need to know is that Linux runs supercomputers. Another OS or kernel could have been be modified to run that supercomputer, but Linux runs supercomputers.
• The first sentence says Linux is a computer operating system. But does that three word phrase describe the subject of this article Linux (GNU/Linux)? I read that phrase more as a "computer system". Is the subject of our Linux introduction going to mention some "operating system" feature? (The GNU C Library, as the kernel, could mislead our Linux audience.) The "operating system" interpretation of computer operating system could define Linux by the kernel if the audience was OS hobbyists and OS developers. Let's line vote by outline.
• The TOC as an outline says sections exist for "creation" and "development", and "programming" of Linux, scoring three points for the defining component of Linux being "the operating system kernel", for our hobbyists and developers.
• Scoring ten points is the user-definition of Linux as a computer system in its entirety, a "look and feel" of a computer system design.
  1. 1.3 Commercial and popular uptake (user uptake)
  2. 2.1 Design of User interface
  3. 2.2 Design of video input (user input)
  4. 4.1 Desktop uses (user)
  5. 4.1.1 Performance and applications (user's look and feel)
  6. 4.1.2 Components and installation (installation as user experience)
  7. 4.2 Servers, mainframes and supercomputers (look and feel)
  8. 4.3 Embedded devices (content is mostly look and feel)
  9. 5 Market share and uptake (executive summary, look and feel)
  10. 6 Copyright, trademark, and naming (popular user uptake due to look and feel),

The "computer system" reading should be defined by the look and feel experienced by its users and onlookers. Finally, "computer operating system" here does by my count mean "computer system" is more a primary topic than "operating system". An operating-system orientation would define Linux the way the reader of Operating system would like it, by then reading Linux kernel. — CpiralCpiral 06:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going to sound rough, so I apologize in advance, but anyway – if you don't care about how and why Linux runs supercomputers, and what's under the hood of an average desktop, why should I care about your essay promoting managerial and GNU buzztalk? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Because I care. — CpiralCpiral 01:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

---

What is "Linux", when it is the single worded question "Linux?" typed into the Wikipedia search engine? The answer could be "a key component of an operating system", but I'm raising a disambiguation issue against it. I'm trying to make an objective, impersonal, appeal to a move from

Linux

1. Operating system kernel
2. Operating system distribution

to

Linux

1. Operating system distribution
2. Operating system kernel

in the lead paragraph. Blame the new hovercard feature :)

I see two contexts of "Linux" the word—kernel context and distro context. I can simply count occurrences and divide, into one side or the other, 1) the sections of our article, 2) the 239 Linux-in-title articles on our wiki. Intuitively I'm thinking that the reality of "Linux" in the English language is on the "distro" definition, not the "kernel" definition, and so in the lead paragraph (that fits a hovercard), that we should mention, via the term "GNU project", the popular Free Software Foundation giant and deemphasize the esoteric things that most people couldn't nod to, like the technical meaning of an "operating system" verses the commonly understood meaning of an "operating system". — CpiralCpiral 01:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think that the majority of regular people could nod to the term "GNU project"? Joe Average doesn't give a fu*k about Linux, GNU or whatever makes up some... Linux? A distribution? Can I have my Outlook calendar on that? Whaaat, I can't? Who made that unusable thing?

Wake up. We're just spending our energy over things that 95% of people neither care nor know about, instead of doing something more productive. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Renaming "Linux" (sic) to "GNU/Linux"

The NPOV have limits. Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia", so it should of course promote the Free Culture (so Free Software, which is contained in Free Culture).

Most "Linux distros" (sic) are modified versions of GNU. The GNU project started GNU at 1984, years before Linus Torvalds started to write his kernel. The RMS's objective was to develop an 100% free Unix-compatible operating system : the GNU system. The GNU project do not develops all elements, but the most. The GNU project opens the way for create a free system and creates importants free operating system components. That is the most important contribution.

So, GNU must is in the name of the GNU/Linux system. Because GNU/Linux is just GNU with a different kernel : Linux, which is just a kernel. A kernel is not more or less important than the rest of the system. The C library are important, and are hard to write too. The shelltoo, the core utils too. Most parts of the system is important and hard to write.

Linus Torvalds gives a big contribution too, but that's nothing compared with the GNU project contribution. But he, and the most of the Linux developers do not care about freedom, which is the goal of projects like Wikipedia, GNU, etc.

Peoples who says "Linux" gave a bad idea of the goal of the GNU system (and the GNU/Linux system, so).

At the Linux kernel project starting, all peoples using GNU/Linux was hackers, and hackers of this time know all that Linux is just the kernel, and GNU is a big part with. But the arrival of Slackware "Linux" (sic) has changed the situation. Slackware was (and is always) destinated to normal peoples, not hackers. Normal people do not know about GNU. Bad idea began to spread. Red Hat began creating another distribution, Red Hat Commercial "Linux" (sic). If Red Hat had the ideals of freedom, it would surely say "GNU/Linux" or "GNU/Linux/X" or "Linux/GNU" or "Linux/GNU/X". But Red Hat is a business, and unfortunately, businesses have no ideals of freedom. (Note : Red Hat have declined the FSF proposition for say "GNU/Linux", IBM too. But Mandrake have accepted. Thanks Mandrake.)

Debian arrive and invent the "GNU/Linux" term, but that was too late. But "too late" do not exists now. If we use the "GNU/Linux" term, that will change the situation. Distros like Debian, Trisquel or Parabola uses the "GNU/Linux" term. Thanks Debian, Trisquel and Parabola.

The peoples who says "Linux" think the "Linux" (sic) system is created by Linux Torvalds in the 90. But GNU/Linux is created by the GNU project and Linus Torvalds, in the 80 (original contribution)/90 (kernel contribution).

Of course, when we talk about the kernel, "Linux, the kernel" and "the kernel, Linux" are good terms. When you talk about the system, tell "GNU/Linux". If you talk about the kernel, tell "Linux, the kernel" or "the kernel, Linux". That removes all disambiguation.

If GNU did not exist, nobody would create a free system. Because today, the only free systems are either variants of GNU or BSD variants. BSD was released because the GNU project requested. Linux was a project designed to "help" with a kernel and GNU was specifically for the GNU system. Even if Linus would have created a kernel, it would surely not be released because he was influenced by a lecture by Richard Stallman. Although it would under a free license, free core would not really make a difference in the world.

So, for defend the freedom (which is the goal of Wikipedia), please rename articles who tell about "The Linux System" (sic) for they tell about GNU/Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Nooo, not again. :) Please, have a look at Talk:Linux/Archive 41 § Page move: GNU/Linux for a lengthy discussion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't read all. But I don't understand the arguments of opponents. What's clearly the opponents arguments? The majority of peoples who tells "Linux" (sic)? The popularity of an error do not make it true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 13:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearly "Linux" is the winning encumbent in the page move debate. Fine. But I feel called to change the second sentence in the lead paragraph: The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds. The GNU/Linux naming controversy is a perpetual calling. — CpiralCpiral 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You're going to need consensus to change that sentence, which I don't think you can get. The entire lede paragraph, including that sentence, reflects a lot of discussion and talk page negotiation. Msnicki (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Linux" isn't WP:PRECISE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 April 2014‎ (UTC)

You can't just cite a guideline, you have to show how it applies and gain consensus that you're right. There's an existing consensus that the existing title is just exactly as precise as it ought to be. "Linux" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic, e.g., as shown in the search engine statistics I presented during the last debate. Msnicki (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This article being at this topic falls well within WP:PRECISE, as that guideline specifically notes; this article's subject is the primary topic for the word "Linux". This isn't any different than any other article that is the primary topic, and isn't an argument for changing the title that is in any way consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines or consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Linux was a kernel, is a kernel, and will be a kernel for ever. When I see a software that works like a kernel, is destinated to be like a kernel, its role is like a kernel, I call that software a kernel. So, it isn't WP:PRECISE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 08:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The Linux kernel is overwhelmingly referred to as the "Linux kernel", not "Linux". Reliable sources unambiguously refute any claim that Linux is just a kernel (if that's really what you're trying to suggest), and when the kernel is referred to, it is not referred to simply as "Linux" by pretty much any reliable source that I could find, whereas this article's topic is referred to simply as "Linux" by the vast majority of sources. The Linux kernel is a kernel, yes. There's an article for that at the appropriate title, a title which is used by reliable sources for that subject. That has nothing to do with this article and has no bearing on the title's precision. This article is not solely about the kernel, and is referred to by reliable sources as "Linux". So again, WP:PRECISE does not support what you're saying at all. - Aoidh (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Linux is destinated to be a kernel, works like a kernel. THIS IS A KERNEL. Even Linus says it : "linux is a complete kernel", "This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds", "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 and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info." Sosolal (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Linux is a kernel, hence the article Linux kernel. But the kernel is not the only thing that is called Linux, so of course the kernel is a complete kernel, that still has nothing to do with this subject, you're arguing to change this subject because another subject exists and you're under the impression that the kernel is the only thing called Linux; that is inaccurate. You can show all day that Linux is the name of a kernel, that does not matter one bit. The WP:COMMONNAME for this subject is Linux, and this subject is the primary topic for the word "Linux". Even if that were not the case, the article would be called Linux (operating system) or something similar; not GNU/Linux, which is a minority POV term not used by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, and reliable sources use Linux to describe this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You still not understand... Even Linus says that : Linux is a kernel, and the operating system is GNU : "Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software [...] These tools aren't in the distribution." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.212.130.163 (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

... and there's another article, GNU/Linux naming controversy. Everything is covered, and this discussion doesn't make much sense, except by being a political promotion toward the free software movement. I do highly respect GNU and everything they've done and what they're still doing, but c'mon, let's face the reality and get over the politics. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Wikipedia uses reliable sources to dictate content, content is not determined by rationalizing to support a minority POV. 78, I never said Linux wasn't a kernel, so you quoting someone doesn't change that (nor does the quote say that "the operating system is GNU"). Saying that the tools used with the operating system are under a different copyright isn't the same as saying "the operating system is GNU". - Aoidh (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Aoidh: You sir are overstating when you claim "reliable sources unambiguously refute any claim that Linux is just a kernel". I can interpret the previous sentence in two senses and both can be proven wrong. Here they are:

• When some source of information that qualifies for reliable use within Wikipedia claims or implies the term Linux covers more than just a kernel, where Linux kernel is used to refer to the kernel itself in order to avoid the most obvious kind of ambiguity (as you stress), the aforementioned source would still be incurring in another kind of ambiguity coming from the language construct used for "Linux kernel" itself, coincidently. Since the underlying English grammar behind "Linux kernel" can either mean "the kernel called Linux" (a single entity expressed as particular name plus category, for example: the XBox console, the Cognaq brandy, the Cognaq beverage) or "the kernel possessed by or pertaining another entity (not a kernel) called Linux" (2 different entities the latter pertaining the former, for example: the Christmas tree, the Microsoft console), it turns out that the sole expression Linux kernel is ambiguous, regardless of who is saying it or whether both meanings are true in the case of Linux because common usage reflects a preference for ambiguity (as is the case of the coffee beverage). This is why Stallman suggested saying "Linux, the kernel" instead of "Linux kernel" for denoting the word Linux doesn't convey other meaning than a kernel to you.
• The second way to interpret your sentence and its corresponding refutation are related to the fact that some reliable sources exist which opt to use the term Linux to mean nothing but a kernel, thus contradicting the sources which don't, and adding up to the general ambiguity. This is trivially demonstrable; a single counterexample should suffice and such an instance follows:

A reference implementation of this architecture was first integrated into a security-enhanced Linux® prototype system in order to demonstrate the value of flexible mandatory access controls...

The architecture has been subsequently mainstreamed into Linux and ported to several other systems, including the Solaris™ operating system, the FreeBSD® operating system, and the Darwin kernel,...

— the NSA on SELinux (a bunch of security additions to the kernel and to nothing else but the kernel), source

As for the previous quotation, please note how the source says the Darwin kernel but never uses the Linux kernel, therefore elucidating their intentions to use Linux alone to name a kernel. Whether they think a kernel is the same as an operating system is off-topic. I'm not saying most sources do likewise, what I'm saying is Linux kernel isn't strictly WP:PRECISE and of course Linux as used mainstream isn't WP:PRECISE even in opposition to WP:COMMONNAME, hence the need for Linux (disambiguation). I'm not asking for a page move, because I agree that most sources say Linux and not GNU/Linux, unfortunately. However, please refrain from giving undue weight to the GNU/Linux POV because it is pretty much covered by a substantial minority of non-primary reliable sources and the WP:POV guideline demands proportional representation. So no more " [the kernel] is not referred to simply as "Linux" by pretty much any reliable source that I could find." and no more "reliable sources use Linux to describe this article's subject" as a means to foster an agenda to nearly entirely exclude the GNU/Linux point of view from the article, specially the much needed brief mention of GNU/Linux in the lead; or as a means to erase the link to the GNU/Linux naming controversy (hilarious clean-up because they deemed a link to SCO-Linux controversies deserved a mention but the GNU/Linux thing didn't). By the way, search engine results do not qualify as an argument for WP:COMMONNAME because WP:COMMONNAME is about commonness among WP:RS. Indexed web pages do not necessarily count as reliable sources.--Sisgeo (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but both of your "interpretations" are wrong, the first one stretching logic to its breaking point and the second just being flat out wrong. If you have issue with "Linux kernel", you are welcome to discuss it at Talk:Linux kernel, but that's a separate topic from this article and again, you're arguing against reliable sources. The quote you gave above comes nowhere close to referring to the Linux kernel solely as Linux (speculating on their "intentions" where they don't suggest anything of the sort is WP:OR). I'm not sure why you're suggesting that I no longer say that "Linux" is not used to describe the kernel by any sources I could find"; that is and remains true, and the quote you have above certainly does nothing to change that. Even when the FSF uses Linux to describe the kernel, they immediately place it into context ("Linux, the kernel"), and the FSF is the only example I can find of even that; most other sources use "Linux kernel" or something similar. I also didn't say anything about search engine results, and primary sources using GNU/Linux is not a claim of any "substantial minority". - Aoidh (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but both of your "interpretations" are wrong, the first one stretching logic to its breaking point...

What? It's a simple Noun adjunct case. Whether you find the logical argument too expansive is irrelevant to its soundness against your claim that Reliable sources unambiguously refute any claim that Linux is just a kernel.

...and the second just being flat out wrong.

Nice argument.

The quote you gave above comes nowhere close to referring to the Linux kernel solely as Linux (speculating on their "intentions" where they don't suggest anything of the sort is WP:OR).

My ramblings on the implications for that source are not speculation; moreover, they are needless. Ignore what I said if you want, just read the source text, which is a reliable secondary one and a crystal clear example that came very ad hoc to disprove you when you say none except the FSF uses Linux to refer solely to a kernel. Are all references subject to original research because Wikipedians have to interpret them before they are added to an article?, or does that policy only applies to sources you would rather like to ignore? I just found another reliable secondary source that states Linux is just a kernel. Please read the section called "GNU/Linux history" in chapter 1.

I also didn't say anything about search engine results

That's true. It was Msnicki who brought it into question. Anyway, those are original research and won't hold water in our discussion.

...primary sources using GNU/Linux is not a claim of any "substantial minority"

Please re-read my previous comment. I gave a link to a recently-added list of non-primary (i.e. secondary, tertiary) sources using GNU/Linux. Then read the Neutral Point of View policy and ask yourself whether the current state of the Linux article complies with the requirements related to substantial minorities. --Sisgeo (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Rather than adding another (GNU/)Linux section, I thought I'd just add it here. This edit in December -- without discussion as far as I can find -- removed all mention of the GNU project and the "GNU/Linux" controversy from the lead. I suggest, just as a matter of clarity, "GNU/Linux" be put somewhere in the lead: probably not the opening paragraph. What y'all think? --Inops (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I don't believe that edit reflects consensus and I have reverted it, pending further discussion. We do not decide controversies certainly not buy burying the disfavored side. We simply report them proportionately. I believe the guidelines, especially WP:COMMONNAME, make clear that the title of the article should be Linux. But the naming controversy deserves mention in the lede. Msnicki (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Simply agreed. --Sisgeo (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A wheel does not become a whole car just because people started calling it "car". So, in this scenario, the "wheel" article, instead of saying "wheel is a car..." just because people call it like that, should have a note clarifying that it is a component of a car and that it is also erroneously called "car". Likewise, a kernel doesn't become a whole operating system just because people call it erroneously like that. The "Linux" article should be an explanation of what it is as well as contain a note informing that people generally call it erroneously a whole operating system.

Also, being a "reliable source" doesn't mean they don't make some mistakes sometimes - or very often in this case - and this is a widespread one. And a false statement doesn't become true by popularity. So, technically and historically, the distributions often called "Linux distributions" are in fact GNU/Linux when they contain the GNU userland and the kernel Linux. Likewise when combining the FreeBSD userland with the kernel Linux you have a FreeBSD/Linux; when combining the GNU userland with the kernel from FreeBSD you have a GNU/FreeBSD(Or GNU/kFreeBSD, like the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD version distro); and so on. It's also fair to call one of those GNU/Linux/X11 for example, when having the X11 component, but the operating system per se doesn't need the window system to fully work.

WP:COMMONNAME is not meant to accept false statements. Bill Clinton, for example, is a WP:COMMONNAME and leads to "William Jefferson Blythe III"'s page, but there the real name is given. So, either "Linux" should lead to "GNU/Linux" and the mistaken is explained as well as an explanation that GNU/Linux is an operating system that combines the GNU userland with the kernel Linux or it should lead to the kernel Linux page and a note saying that people generally confuse the word "Linux" with some distributed operating systems that combines GNU and Linux, usually by lack of technical information or because previous uninformed people didn't explained correctly what is what. A page like this on Wikipedia should be a place where uninformed people comes and finally discovers that they're using the wrong terms and the mistake is clarified. This page on Wikipedia shouldn't be another place that reiterates the wrong information. The information contained on a Wikipedia article should be guided by technical details and not by popularity of the terms. There's nothing wrong with a WP:COMMONNAME that carries the wrong information, but when people arrive at the page, the mistake should be clarified. So, ultimately, I strongly support the naming change to GNU/Linux when the combination of the GNU userland with the kernel Linux is the case. As a different case example, Google's Android doesn't use the GNU userland, so it's not a case to use GNU/Linux, for example, and no one claims so. 189.127.212.79 (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the GNU/Linux operating system main author is the GNU project, so the GNU project's advice should be respected. Sosolal (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Release date.

So according to this article, linux was released in 1991, 23 years ago, but on the Linux Kernel article it states the Linux Kernel initial release was 22 years ago. I'm guessing that's because the Linux Kernel page states September as the month, and this page just goes by the year, but it seems strange to have a page about the operating system, stating that the operating system came out a year before the kernel was released. Lmcgregoruk (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Operating System versus Kernel

That a difference exists between a "kernel" and an Operating System seems technically inaccurate. That difference doesn't seem to exist. See what the USPTO says the name Linux represents:

Go to the US Patent and Trademark website, here:

USPTO Trademark Search.  

Select "Basic Word Mark Search.

Enter "linus torvalds" into the search field and and change the value of Field to "Owner Name and Address".

Click "search". Select the result that showing as "Live", then click the "TSDR" button.

The following text is from the Status tab, under "For", "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation".

A shell isn't part of the kernel but the command-line is the interface between user and OS. Isn't the shell (e.g. bash) also viewed as the interface to the kernel?

Kernel.package (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The difference between a kernel and OS in general is computer science and some source for that could be found I'm sure. Kernel has a meaning (that can be stretched). OS would include the kernel and more (how much more, is a little fuzzy..). What the USPTO says (or Linus in his application) would not define either in general or for "Linux". Linus speaks of his kernel as a "monolithic kernel", admitting it is a kernel. I'm sure he would agree that an OS is more than the kernel, but he happened to apply for a trademark on the OS (as a whole) not the kernel. What I find more interesting are his dead trademarks ("LINUX COMPATIBLE")..:

Word Mark LINUX

Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation. FIRST USE: 19940802. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19940802

Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING

Word Mark LINUX COMPATIBLE

Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer hardware

Mark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS

Design Search Code 03.15.15 - Penguins; Puffins

03.15.26 - Costumed birds and bats and those with human attributes

Word Mark LINUX COMPATIBLE

Goods and Services (ABANDONED) IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer hardware

Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
comp.arch (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"Linus speaks of his kernel as a "monolithic kernel", admitting it is a kernel. I'm sure he would agree that an OS is more than the kernel..."

He does, actually:

"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 and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools

aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info."

https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01

189.127.212.79 (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Use DMY or MDY?

I was going to change eg. "February 8". See "first released on 5 October 1991" in lead. Then saw template-"Use mdy dates|date=November 2012". Didn't bother to find first use. I think this should be other way around and see my recent edites in History of Linux. Would be best if these article where in sync. And refs in sync with main article. At least not all three formats. YMD a comromise there? comp.arch (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

RAC

The "Respect Author's Choice" rule is important. In the article subject case, the main author is the GNU project. The GNU Project choice is GNU/Linux. So, we should name it GNU/Linux. Sosolal (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that may be your rule but it's not a Wikipedia rule. It's not found anywhere in our guidelines. What is in our guidelines is WP:COMMONNAME, which asks that we use the most common name, which is overwhelmingly Linux, not GNU/Linux. Msnicki (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a moral rule. It's polite to respect it. Sosolal (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and a case can be made for WP:IGNORE - but in this case I can simply point out that WP:COMMONNAME says to make sure to consult with WP:POVTITLE and WP:PRECISE, and GNU/Linux is (by definition) less ambiguous. Seems to me there's far more rules in favor of GNU/Linux but WP:COMMONNAME is the only one that (can be construed to) prefer "Linux". Cd1207 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:POVNAME highlights that a minority POV term should not be used over the most recognized term, and WP:PRECISE specifically notes that a primary topic makes an exception and outweighs over-precision, especially an over-precision is used by very few sources and shows undue bias towards a minority POV. You're welcome to read the numerous archives on this talk page (found at the top) that go into more detail, but saying that it's "only WP:COMMONNAME" is inaccurate, saying that "there's far more rules in favor of GNU/Linux" even more so. - Aoidh (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should WP:IGNORE WP:COMMONNAME and prefer W:PRECISE. Also, the WP:NPOV is a bit weird : Wikipedia is itself a WP:POV, so we should simply WP:IGNORE WP:NPOV too in cases which can be critical for free culture (and so software) as this naming controversy. Unfortunately, WP:NPOV is a WP:PILLAR and we cannot WP:IGNORE it. :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.212.130.163 (talk • contribs)

Given that WP:PRECISE notes that WP:PRIMARY is more important, even WP:PRECISE supports the current title, given that this article's subject is overwhelmingly the primary topic for the word Linux. So even ignoring WP:COMMONNAME, there's nothing supporting such a change, not even WP:IGNORE. - Aoidh (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

But how to tell it? This is an ERROR. And this is in encyclopedias's goals to CORRECT that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.212.130.163 (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a very small, very vocal minority's opinion that it is an error, nothing more. It is not "in encyclopedia's goals" to help a small group push an agenda, especially when that would put the article at odds with reliable sources. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to "correct" what is, only to reflect it. - Aoidh (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"the main author is GNU" this is unfounded claim: the GNU part of a complete linux distro is not the majority, see e.g. http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux/ , so it should be not at all called GNU/linux. Also the historical notation that without GNU parts there would be no linux is most likely wrong, more likely is the opposite, without the linux kernel there would no GNU anymore. Please, stop this annoying and time wasting naming controversy. Shaddim (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You are totally wrong, the Linux part are 1,5% and GNU is 15%. But this is not the question : If I remove KDE and/or X, it works fine. In command-line, but fine. If I remove apt, dpkg or rpm, it works fine. Not easy for install software but fine (see source distros, ./configure && make && sudo make install). If I remove Java, Java software will not works. But there is no so much Java software. And no important Java software at all. If I remove Mozilla, you can always use other browsers/mail such as GNUzilla or Debian Ice*. But if I remove Linux, it will not work. If I remove GNU, it will not work. You say GNU wouldn't exists without Linux, but how GNU would exists, Linux was born in 90's and GNU in 80's. No, really, Linux couldn't exists without GNU. Where the shell, the commands, the compilers, the text editors, the browsers, etc. would be? You're simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.212.130.163 (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources please? according to everything I found, the GNU part gets more and more negligible. Additionally, for these parts more and more alternatives are available, like for GCC the Clang/LLVM. PS: no one questions the historical importance of GNU but technical they get more and more unimportant. Shaddim (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

[www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#allsmall Hum, hum.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.212.130.163 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

it is outdated and not a neutral source. this is at least three years newer and uses a relevant distro (Ubuntu); according to this source GNU has not the majority anymore & can be mostly substituted. Shaddim (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Find me a popular distro which substitute the really importants bash, coreutiles, inetutils, glibc and other stuff like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it is actually substituted, the existence of alternatives for almost every GNU part shows that the GNU stuff is not essential anymore. And even un-substituted, the gnu part is small in real world distros. Shaddim (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is about GNU/Linux as used now, and there is no popular BSD/Linux distros (for example) actually. And if one day it exists... That will make another reason to name this article "GNU/Linux" : to not be confused with BSD/Linux (for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 08:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Overall, this (technical) discussion is fruitless as wikipedia should only reflect the reality and not define concepts and find best fitting names. Reality has already voted long ago by feet for "Linux" (and it makes also sense from a technical point of view). Shaddim (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Linux" is technically incorrect : if you install Linux on a computer, it will not works : it will show you a black screen maybe. But no any interface exists in Linux. The interface is GNU. GNU/Linux is the only technically correct name. If "Linux" article redirdects to "GNU/Linux", I don't see the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 12:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't use GNU as "interface"(?) , I use a bunch of tools, libraries and software (partly developed under the GNU umbrella) in my Linux system, packaged by a distro, driven by the Linux kernel. 99% of people share this point of view. Accept the reality, you can't bend the reality to your definition. Shaddim (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Who develops the glibc? The coreutils? bash? inetutils? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 12:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't let it go? As I said already a small part of the software is developed under the GNU umbrella. As other parts are developed under the Mozilla, Apache or other organizations' umbrella. GNU is just a small (and replaceable) contributor like others. Shaddim (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So find me a popular distro which replace it, two possible solutions :

1. You find me it -> We rename this article "GNU/Linux" for discern distros using GNU and distros using another operating system (for example : BSD/Linux).
2. You don't find me it -> GNU is a part of the operating system -> We rename the article "GNU/Linux" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof is on your side, I will stopp here arguing with you. There is no accepted formal or technical reason or broad real world acceptance for "GNU/linux". Shaddim (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As talking to a wall. How you cannot understand? GNU is needed for start!

Ported to more platforms than any other operating system

I'm not normally one to comment in talk sections like this, but if ever there were a statement that could use a big old "Citation Needed" link, this would be one. As best as I can find, NetBSD supports more platforms than Linux. I am not a NetBSD user, and I am a Linux user. Regardless, if the statement is correct, it should include some citations. If it is not correct, then perhaps a simple rephrasing to the effect of "been ported to more hardware platforms than most other operating systems" or "been ported to many additional hardware platforms". Just thoughts. ScottDaleRobison (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)