Talk:GNU

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Requested Move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure)innotata 23:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)



GNUGNU operating system – I believe that some people (if not most people) know "GNU" from the GNU Project and things that came from the project, such as GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Compiler Collection (gcc), GNU Debugger (gdb) or GNU Core Utilities (coreutils).

However, the GNU operating system is not widely known (at least not known as "GNU"), since it is usually combined with the Linux kernel (this is explicitly mentioned on the GNU homepage, resulting in a system usually called Linux. Although there is some GNU/Linux naming controversy, but it seems like the majority of the people call it as Linux.

Here is some more information on the naming problem, and I hope that another flame war won't happen here.

My opinion is to move content on this page to GNU operating system (which is currently a redirect to this page), and change this page into a redirect to GNU (disambiguation). The GNU link in the disambiguation page would also have to be changed. Theemathas (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - GNU is the primary topic; if sources use "GNU" by itself, they are referring to this subject. If they mean the GNU GPL, they use GNU GPL, they never refer to the GPL as simply GNU. There is no subject that is referred to simply as GNU which competes with this subject as a primary topic, and that GNU itself isn't as widely used as the GNU GPL or coreutils doesn't mean that this article's title needs to be changed, there is nothing wrong with this article being at this title, and the rationale given doesn't support the change in the context of WP:AT. - Aoidh (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Aoidh: most sources I've seen use "GNU" to refer to operating system, and specify particular GNU project otherwise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wildly outdated reference[edit]

I noticed the following sentence

GNU programs have also been shown to be more reliable.[34]

The problem is that the solitary reference to bolster this claim is from 1995! Surely there must be a more recent reference? Or are we to assume that nobody has bothered to try demonstrating the reliability of GNU programs in the past twenty years?

86.158.129.110 (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an operating system[edit]

GNU's most important task is to provide open source versions of the UNIX command line tools. There is some other software under the GNU umbrella as well, such as GNOME. But it's still an exaggeration to call GNU an operating system. It's more like a collection of some essential components for an operating system. 80.223.182.224 (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia we add content based on verfiable reliable non-primary sources. What should be in the article, if it can be backed up by such sources, is all of the points-of-views of what GNU is, including the one you express here. — Lentower (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
GNU certainly is not a fully functional operating system on its own, so it might be a bit misleading to call it such. 80.220.226.229 (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes by Fsfolks[edit]

I've reverted the changes by User:Fsfolks for the following reasons:

  1. This edit of theirs changed "GNU programs have been shown to be more reliable than their proprietary Unix counterparts" to "GNU programs have been shown to be more reliable than the alternative proprietary Unix counterparts". The sentence was clear enough before, but after the change it is nonsensical. Fsfolks's edit summary, "GNU doesn't own proprietary unix counterparts", implies they don't understand the use of the English genitive here. To be clear, "their" doesn't denote possession or authorship here; it's simply indicating the comparand to "counterparts".
  2. The same edit changed "The combination of GNU software and the Linux kernel is known as Linux (or less frequently GNU/Linux, see GNU/Linux naming controversy)" to "The combination of GNU software and the Linux kernel is called GNU/Linux (though some people call it as Linux, see GNU/Linux naming controversy)". Both statements are true, but the second is a bit prescriptive (as strangely worded—bordering on grammatically incorrect, in fact). In an attempt to address Fsfolks's concern, I modified this to "The combination of GNU software and the Linux kernel is commonly known as Linux (or less frequently GNU/Linux; see GNU/Linux naming controversy)". I think this makes it clearer that "Linux" is only the more commonly used name, but not necessarily the "correct" one. For some reason Fsfolks reverted this change as "vandalism".
  3. The remaining changes simply seem to unnecessarily expand the image captions, which were fine the way they were.

Fsfolks, if after reading the above explanations you still believe your changes are better, please seek consensus for them here before reintroducing them. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

1) the sentence I've edited is not always understood by all the people the same way as in your case: the context of "their" here creates some ambiguity: so it's better to change the whole sentence to a more clear one: so all people understand it correctly.
2) I think that here you tried to completely revert the edit, rather than fixing the gramatical mistake you are seeing. Fsfolks (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget that deleting cited text as what you already did for my edit [1] is vandalism: and it should be reverted for this particular reason. Fsfolks (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Concerning your last sentence, what you're describing is not vandalism per WP:VAND. Just because something can be cited does not mean it is appropriate for an article, thus removing it is not vandalism just because it is cited. - Aoidh (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
When people talk of Linux technically, they mean the kernel: when they hear of "GNU/Linux", they understand the combination of GNU+Linux, even if they don't know that term before. What do you think the goal of the Ubuntu company is, when they say "we prefer to use the term “GNU/Linux” to refer to systems that many people casually refer to as “Linux”" ? do you think honnestly that they are wrong? Fsfolks (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
"When people talk of Linux technically, they mean the kernel" is only true in a minority of instances, in which case they always say "Linux kernel"; even the FSF makes this clarification. The word "Linux", when used by itself without the word kernel following it, is not used in the English language to refer solely to the kernel outside of a very, very, very few instances that are by far the exception and not the norm. "GNU/Linux" is a minority term that is not used by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. As for the Ubuntu reference, that's not Ubuntu's goal. Ubuntu is based on Debian, which was directly funded by the FSF and the FSF directly influenced Debian using that term through its sponsorship. The Ubuntu page you're citing is an exact copy of the Debian documentation. The goal of Ubuntu is (apparently) to avoid using Linux or GNU/Linux whenever possible, as evidenced by their website. So yes, I do think that the idea that Ubuntu prefers to use the term GNU/Linux is wrong, given that, outside of documentation lifted from Debian, there is no use of GNU/Linux by Ubuntu that I could find. - Aoidh (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The term "Linux" when refering to GNU/Linux: is the Linux Foundation's POV term which was widespread through their manifesto: but when we treat this combination technically: GNU/Linux is the most appropriate term. already KDE uses the term when talking about the combination without additional software: [2].
Describing some terms of being "minority term" is too idiosyncratic, since oughing to know the way how all people more than others is basically incorrect.
It's true that the term is used by Debian and not directly by Ubuntu. But, Debian is a project founded by SPI and under SPI policies and guidelines: already the DFSG forbids GNU FDL invariant sections and already FSF and Debian have different approvals of accepting software as being free: so I think here you missed the point. Fsfolks (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a source that shows that Linux is the Linux Foundation's POV term? Because usage of the term Linux to describe the operating system as a whole predates the existence of the Linux Foundation itself, so that claim seems dubious, and what manifesto are you referring to? The KDE source you gave is severely dated, KDE does not "already use" that term, it used it in 1999 according to that source and refers to it solely as Linux now. As for the Ubuntu source you gave, I didn't "miss the point" at all. You claimed Ubuntu had a stated goal of using the term GNU/Linux, when that is not the case, and Debian and the FSF "decided jointly to call the system "Debian GNU/Linux"". That is per Richard Stallman himself[3] so the Debian example is anything but a third-party example of usage. Claiming that "The combination of GNU software and the Linux kernel is known as GNU/Linux" is true only within a small minority of sources, most of which are associated with the FSF and are not a third-party source for such a claim. Most sources do not reflect that claim, therefore per WP:NPOV the article cannot state that as if it is a universal truth; it is not. Please see MOS:LINUX. - Aoidh (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
When I said "Linux Foundation's POV term": I was meaning Torvalds POV + other people who started the kernel project: I was meaning by "manifesto" the open source movement of the kernel project and the Linux foundation. Torvalds was the first one who started promoting the Linux term [4]. KDE already uses the GNU/Linux term in this page [5]. per WP:NPOV an operating system is a complete software stack so the use of "Linux", which is a piece of software developed at kernel.org, is not appropriate here: otherwise it's Torvalds POV. Fsfolks (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
According to the source code that page was last updated on 2014-08-20, so that's not a recent change that supersedes the main KDE page which has numerous articles written more recently than that, and even the parent page of the one you cited uses "Linux" exclusively, so the KDE source you gave absolutely does not verify that the OS is referred to as GNU/Linux and not Linux. The problem with what you're saying is that reliable third-party sources that have nothing to do with Torvalds use the term Linux overwhelmingly. They do not use GNU/Linux in any significant way. Linux is a kernel, but where reliable sources disagree with you is the idea that the only thing the word Linux describes is the kernel. Linux is also the operating system as a whole; that is what reliable sources reflect, and Wikipedia articles reflect viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. See also MOS:LINUX and (if you want a very detailed catalog of the discussions that created that consensus), Talk:Linux/Name. - Aoidh (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Fsfolks, regarding your first point: I disagree. The sentence is crystal-clear in English; there is no appreciable possibility of misinterpretation by anyone fluent in the language. I suspect you are in a tiny minority for having misinterpreted "their counterparts" to mean that GNU itself must have published those counterparts. Regarding your second point, I already explained that not only did I revert the poor writing, I also rewrote the claim (in correct English) such that it addressed your apparent concerns. Regarding your third point about this edit, you broke the existing reference, which is arguably worse than the previous dead link, and added another reference which, besides also being syntactically incorrect, was superfluous. I've now properly fixed the dead link. Please stop referring to my edits as vandalism, and please make sure that when you edit the article, you carefully check the syntax of your markup. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The use of "tiny minority", regarding the first point when explaining that "The sentence is crystal-clear in English", is POV and nothing else: since it is too superfluous and incorrect to ought to know the things that you don't about how all people understand such sentence. as for the second one, you need to avoid duplicicity: I used two references and now I added a new one [6] : I think three references are enough to prove that the cited term is not superfluous: describing it as "syntactically incorrect" is POV-pushing.
I see that you are assuming bad faith: and that your unconstructive behaviour is showing here.
You need to make more constructive edits and assume good faith, so I will not refer to your edits as "disruptive edits" or "vandalism". Fsfolks (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Please remember to assume the assumption of good faith. I've reverted your most recent edit for the same reasons they were previously reverted. The addition of the Arch Linux wiki doesn't change anything (not least of all because open wikis are not reliable sources), because while you found three sources that support what you are saying (two of which are directly tied to the group that pushes the term GNU/Linux), there are many, many more sources which directly contradict the claim that "The combination of GNU software and the Linux kernel is known as GNU/Linux" and not simply "Linux". Most sources describe it as Linux, not GNU/Linux. That is why your edit is being reverted. - Aoidh (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I missed that the ArchLinux citation was a wiki: so I kept it removed. I have already added new citation [7]: I think that reverting cited text with three references without verifiablity issue is vandalism. You need to discuss things as well and get a consensus before reverting again. Fsfolks (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not how it works, you are proposing a change, you must get a consensus for your proposed change, else the WP:STATUSQUO remains: During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.. Please also read WP:VAND, because what you're suggesting is vandalism is not, per Wikipedia's definition of what vandalism is and is not. - Aoidh (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it's vandalism per wikipedia definition. Fsfolks (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome to ask any administrator, but the edits you are describing are not vandalism and to accuse someone of vandalizing a page is a personal attack, even if you're just referring to their edit and not them by name. - Aoidh (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It's your own POV. Fsfolks (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not a POV, it's a matter of fact, one that can be easily verified by reading WP:VAND. But like I said, don't take my word for it, ask any administrator or here or if that works better for you. - Aoidh (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Fsfolks, your template markup cannot be parsed by the MediaWiki software that runs this site. As a consequence, it has inserted into the article three conspicuous red error messages complaining about syntax errors. I can assure you that the parser has no point of view whatsoever. That your edits are syntactically incorrect (both in terms of English language and in terms of wiki markup) is a trivially provable statement of fact, not an opinion. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
We have a longstanding consensus operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux" on Wikipedia, as per WP:COMMONNAME and also MOS:LINUX. "GNU/Linux" is considered a minority POV term used by the FSF and its supporters. On Wikipedia the term is only used to describe distros when the distro itself is called "GNU/Linux", such as "Debian GNU/Linux", and then only when referring to the distro itself. I don't see any argument here made that would change this. - Ahunt (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
You want it to be a "minority POV": but you don't already own the truth. Fsfolks (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This is from longstanding consensus. You should read Talk:Linux including all the archives of that page, to get the history of the problem as well as Talk:Linux/Name as this is where past consensuses have been formed. You will also want to read GNU/Linux naming controversy and its talk page as background as well. As far as the truth goes, please refer to WP:THE TRUTH. - Ahunt (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not your concern. Fsfolks (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Nor yours, since you have been blocked indefinitely. Cheers. --Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 23:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Concerning the pronunciation verification[edit]

An IP editor has been making a change to the article that is not only unnecessary, but hurts the ability to directly verify the information given. Their latest edit summary was "clearly, you haven't read the sources. they do not just verify the pronunciation. grow up and stop reverting for no reason" Personal attacks aside, it doesn't matter that they don't just verify the pronunciation, that's the part that matters because that's the part that needed a citation. We don't need five references at the end of the sentence verifying a simple statement as that is overkill, especially for the lede sentence when the lede isn't a particularly exceptional claim. Readers wishing to verify the pronunciation should be able to do so without having to dig through irrelevant references hoping to find something that verifies the information; the references should be near the material they support. There is no requirement on Wikipedia that references be placed at the end of the sentence. - Aoidh (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on GNU. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)