From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for GNewSense:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : Explain FSF endorsement -- they cite gNewSense in press releases
  • Cleanup : Clarify meaning of "binary blobs" etc. for new users
  • Expand : Differences from Ubuntu
  • NPOV : GNU/Linux controversy
  • Update : Improvements in new version

Articles are *still* not written from the POV of their subjects[edit]

So this is currently the only article on WP which uses the appelation GNU/Linux distribution, despite the term being functionally equivalent to Linux distribution in common usage and Wikipedia's consistent use of Linux to refer to any GNU/Linux system. There's no need for this, and all it does is create the impression that this article is written from the personal point of view of those who support gNewSense. It shouldn't be doing this: articles are meant to be objective, and to follow the wider encyclopedia's rules and guidelines.

This should still be changed back, as every argument for keeping it as-is has been refuted previously on Talk:Linux. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You are the only person editing in Wikipedia who is trying to oblige other users to accept your "let's excise GNU" point of view . I see that user jam, who also logs in as the user JGXenite, is willing to back your actions. Unfortunately Thumperward you are not a person open to hold a frank and sincere discussion because the right way to proceed is first to have a seriuos discussion among all users and then when all have expressed their arguments we should proceed to delete or change the terms used or keep them. Your actions do not show much respect for the contributions other people make to the articles. If you disagree with them then why don't you talk to them and have a discussion FIRST before you simply delete what they wrote and as only remark you say "That is not consistent(with your POV by the way). Your consistency claim about wikipedia is indeed false because if anyone cares to go to the other language versions of Wikipedia the terms GNU and GNU/Linux are used extensively. It is only in the English language version and mainly because of your goal due to some personal reasons that you have to excise the GNU/Linux term that we have these unnecessary disputes.
You are a partisan of the use of the term Linux so you are not neutral at all. The actions to excise the GNU term represent only your personal point of view. Then do not use the argument that articles are not written from the POV of the editors because that is exactly what you do.
By the way I am not related to a user called Gronky or to anyone else nor do I log in anonymously, as I have read you have accuse me, to post comments against you. I do not conspire with other as you seem to do with user jam = JGXenite to attack anyone else. If you have problems with other editors it is only because of your disrespect in how you treat other people's contribution to Wikipedia. Midnightcrow (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that there's anything here that I can reply to productively (the user has been indef blocked anyway), but as there hasn't been any input from Gronky on the matter I'm reverting this. If this continues, we're probably going to have to go to arbitration, because despite a solid rationale for maintaining the status quo this article is continually edited to reflect the POV of its subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You get some input from me, the consensus on this page seems to be that GNU/Linux is fine, no reason declared to remove it, i'll set it back. Mion (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The "consensus" here is rather heavily weighted in favour of a series of long screeds by three users who have all now been indefinitely blocked as single-purpose sockpuppets. Do you yet have a counter-argument for why this particular article (the only one on Wikipedia) should be written from the point of view of its subject? Until you do, this page shouldn't needlessly buck the trend set by the entire rest of the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well Chris, the consensus overhere is that this is a Gnu/Linux distribution, you are reverting against that consensus, this is the last warning , if you you revert again, i'll have you blocked for it. Cheers. Mion (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I implore you to raise a WP:RFC on this issue instead, which should have been done a long time ago. I've tried extremely hard to be reasonable throughout this debate. You've yet to respond rationally to my main arguments, and you've no basis for "warning" me on any policy grounds. I see others have reverted you over this recently anyway, even while I've continued to engage in good-faith discussion without adequate response. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Chris, on this page the consensus is that its GNU/Linux, several people declared that GNU/Linux is prefered in wikipedia articles on your userpage, you tried to get this page locked, which was denied, and you are just ignoring it, and my stance on it is that, from al the encyclopedia's wikipedia is the one most up to date (in general), so tell me, GNU/Linux has 16.700.000 hits on Google, and as a guess about 10.000 projects on the Forge which declare themselfs as GNU/Linux, so why is it, that you play, I put my hands on my eyes, then it doesn't exist ? and where can I find a bot operator to autocorrect the wrong articles ? Mion (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A shining light on Wikipedia[edit]

I haven't been following this thread, but I just saw a note that this article is "the only one on Wikipedia" which uses the name "GNU/Linux" for the GNU+Linux operating system. I'd just like to point out, again, that the only reason "GNU/Linux" appears rarely on Wikipedia is because last Summer, Chris here, alone, replaced every occurrence of "GNU/Linux" with "Linux". Some people expressed concern, but Chris edits more than all those people combined, so it was impossible to stop his harmful activity. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't provide much protection against this type of harmful editting (which I call an "edit flood").

My position is like that of Wikipedians Jimbo Wales,[1] Simon Phipps,[2] Dkrogers,[3] NerdyNSK,[4] Mion, etc. From the point of view of writing an encyclopedia article, GNU/Linux is the right and correct name.

All we can do is save what little we can and hope that WP develops a protection against this or hope that Chris becomes less powerful sometime in the future. That could happen if many new Wikipedians come and stay and eventually counterbalance the weight of Chris's edits (and this article suggests that this may be already happening). --Gronky (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to open an RFC on this, but suffice to say that the history presented here is sheer revisionism. Editors without a clear understanding of the history of the debate are encouaged to read this thread. There was a longstanding and unrefuted motion for change on Talk:Linux, I took the time to edit stray articles to reflect the consensus, and for over six months Gronky has been crying foul and forum shopping to try to rewrite the history of the debate without engaging in any good-faith dispute resolution. I've already had to substantially reduce my editing time on the project as a result of being made a personal target for this campaign. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

An RfC for the naming issue has been opened here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

gNewSense 2.0 is out[edit]

See —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Free software selected article: gNewSense[edit]

Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was software patents and free software - a well-referenced article about the problems and solutions for software patents in the free software community. Help is sought however to expand the sections in that article.

For other interesting free software articles, you can take a look at the archive of PF's selectees. --Gronky (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, things are moving on again. The new selectee is Psiphon - a award-winning piece of software that's not very well known. It allows someone with censored Internet access to get full Internet access via a proxy. The classic example is that it can let people in China read and contribute to Wikipedia. --Gronky (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you add?[edit]

Can someone add to the "Technical aspects" section of the article which package management systems GNS can make use of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogburnd02 (talkcontribs) 13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"comparison with debian" needs better citation[edit]

I dont feel the citation #10 is a valuable/useful one. It doesnt seem to actually answer *why* this is the case.

And related to that, I'm not aware of any GFDL+invariant sections documentation *in* gNS. It doesn't consider it non-free, but it hasn't added any in. So That point may be totally incorrect.

Kgoetz (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Examples are rather easy to find (for example the package gawk-doc, which is in Debian's non-free repository and gnewsense's main). However I agree that the citation is not a very good one. --SLi (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Debian Has been updated since this article was written. Their kernel version no longer includes binary blobs, but I do not feel qualified to edit this, as I don't know what other differences make Debian "nonfree" anymore. I think it has to do with documentation. (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

[citation needed] by "focuses on software freedom"[edit]

What sort of citation is required? Perhaps it was actually the statement about "good usability" that requires it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgoetz (talkcontribs) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Reworded intro[edit]

This version seems like an acceptable compromise to both me and Grandscribe. I'm not even going to try to figure out what was meant by the edit summary when it was summarily reverted, but let's see if we can't agree to restore that wording as it's more acceptable than the current version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As there's been no response, I've reverted to the prior compromise. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
don't play the innocent, we talked this through, if you have new arguments, please let us know. Mion (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The compromise wording is a fair compromise to the parties involved. It explicitly gives the FSF's wording on what gNewSense is composed of. I do not pretend to "play the innocent"; I merely expect that editors will discuss issues with me if given a whole week to do so. I had contacted dissenting editors to inform them of the change. Silence implies consensus. As it stands, Gronky has not weighed in and both Grandscribe and I agree on my wording. In the event that no further argument is advanced, the compromise wording will be restored. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
So far no argument is presented for a change. Mion (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
English is not your first language, but it is mine, so please consider that when I am presented with a challenge I respond to it. The entire wording I'm proposing has changed since the last debate. It is an entirely new argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Its nice to have two discussions, User_talk:Mion#Please_consider_compromise, but if the only argument is, i'm going to try this every 3 months until I get what I want, than sorry Mion (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
"What I want" is an end to this petty feud and a compromise which is acceptable to all parties. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
To end the feud, simply stop your solitary campaign to rid Wikipedia of "GNU/Linux". The laudable goal of "acceptable to all parties" does not give you free rein to pound on this until you get something that's acceptable to you. --Gronky (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That's unacceptable. If Grandscribe agrees with a compromise which reframes the lede of this article in a manner which very closely echoes the FSF's position, why will you not? The term "GNU/Linux" is a controversial, minority name. If we can avoid using it while also sticking closely to the way parties which use that term frame the situation then this seems to be the optimal solution. "Pounding on this" by engaging other users in debate and attempting to find common ground where possible is how all issues should be resolved on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Chris. I hope you have not misunderstood me. We had a discussion concerning the edits that had been done to the intro of this article that had omitted the term GNU. I think those changes (removing GNU) I found were NOT made by you. So when I put GNU back it was to bring the article to the previously accepted version. I know you suggested using the terms "GNU operating system" for this article and I found it better than not mentioning GNU at all. But at the same time I think the participation of the other regular editors of this article was necessary. --Grandscribe (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with Debian[edit]

Rather then simply make a change, I thought I'd ask about this here. I find the use of the word "Ironically" to fail NPOV, since for the GNU project (and gNewSense), having invariant sections is perfectly ok. Anyone mind if I remove it? "It should be noted, however, that gNewSense also includes documentation that the Debian project considers non-free, particularly that licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License with invariant sections. Ironically, this includes many manuals released by the GNU project themselves, which contain a lengthy manifest promoting software freedom as an invariant section."

kgoetz (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe. Although I didn't mean to say that it's ironical that gNewSense contains GNU documentation, but that it's ironical that of all possible material in the world that created by the GNU project, the bastion and original source of free software, is considered non-free by Debian. Yeah, I can see how calling something ironical can be POV, but can you disagree that it actually is ironical when put that way, regardless of what opinion of the actual issue you have? :) (And that's not to say that I either agree or don't agree with Debian's decision. I actually do, but for all this it shouldn't matter at all.)
But yeah, I don't object to rewordings. --SLi (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
If your using Debians definition of "Free" (which applies equally to all things in the distribution) then yes, I agree it is kind of ironic. If your using the FSFs/GNU projects definition of "Free" (which varies depending on the type of work) then no, its not ironic. (As it happens, I agree with Debian too, but thats a moot point here).
Wording changed, feel free to hack it a bit more if needed. kgoetz (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


Is it "nuisance"? SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

guh-NEW-sense is the preferred pronunciation according to the gNewSense FAQ MentalNotes (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The name originally came from a repository called "Gnuisance", and it was changed to gNewSense to be both a pun on GNU and the New Sense that the distribution offers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

GLX is back.[edit]

The next set of Mesa packages uploaded to the gNewSense archive (which should be there already) will re-introduce GLX support. Brian has posted on , and SVN commit 223 was the code change. kgoetz (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


Two reasons for gNewSense being notable:

  1. It's given FSF assistance.
  2. It is one of three distros meeting Richard Stallmans strict standards for freedom.

Autarch (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to SuperOS?[edit]

Does a comparison with SuperOS provide any benefit (other then increase S.OS's link pool). I question its relevance, as the distro is no-name and seems to have no /actual/ comparison made on this page. kgoetz (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral about this. On one side, Super OS and gNewSense are on extremes in the open source world, so a comparison might make sense. But on the other side, the way things are worded might sound like a criticism to Super OS. Like I said, I'm neutral. Feel free to re-word that or remove it. Disclaimer: I have both gNewSense and Super OS (on different PCs). SF007 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Someone removed that. Probably the best thing to to. SF007 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Free vs. open source[edit]

I just want to inform the regular editors of this page that user Yworo is not acting in good faith. He's making an important change on this page without having a discussion here. There's a discussion on the Ubuntu discussion page now. He tries to remove the term Free software as a valid phrase to describe software based on GNU/Linux for example Ubuntu, gNewSense, etc. While accusing me of not discussing any changes I do he does exactly that. He asks people on their talk pages to aid him in his edits and goes as far as to ask them to block me for no other reason that not agreeing to accept his changes. He does not even care to mention his sources.--Grandscribe (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't like my reducing any bias in the article, but that's what WP:NPOV says we are supposed to do.
Also, please note that you are supposed to be discussing the content here, not what you think of me. Yworo (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So, in discussing the actual topic.... Do you deny that free software is also open source software? Yworo (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was worth linking to a page where the discussion has already happened. Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)#Source_Model
No point having this discussion multiple times unless there is new information to be contributed. kgoetz (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
official homepage reads gNewSense is a fully free software GNU/Linux distribution and links to [5] when defining free software, implying the free software term is preferred by its' creators. While WP:RS places restrictions on self-published sources, it doesn't specifically refer to official web pages of software projects, nor it is clear that the restrictions about self-published sources on themselves applies.Autarch (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Here, anonymous: This is where you post your arguments against the term Free software. I'll even be so kind as to start first: I claimed no (global) consensus about the terminology, and contrary to your claims in reverts, there isn't one. Open source is a commercial wrapper for free software, which has recently begun to differ from it, as "free software" is now its subset because OSI approves some licenses deemed non-free by FSF. In any case, projects decide what to call it, and Gnewsense has chosen "free software" (see above). It is not I alone who acknowledges it, everyone here does (or most), I just revert you. And you're the one doing the bullying here. Now stop your cowardly reverts, log in and post here. --Paxcoder (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection[edit]

Due to being made aware of a dispute on this page, I have protected it until disputes are resolved (with an expiry of two weeks in case I forget). Obviously, reaching a consensus on the talk page (regarding the above issue) is the most compelling way to show the dispute is resolved. Thanks for your patience, GDonato (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

GNU/Linux system and GNU/Linux distro[edit]

IMHO, there is no POV in using the word GNU/Linux to designate the whole system, and the expression GNU/Linux distribution to designate a distro. Please, see the linux-kernel mailing list FAQ for more information. In this FAQ, we have tried to use the word "Linux" or the expression "Linux kernel" to designate the kernel, and GNU/Linux to designate the entire body of GNU/GPL'ed OS software, as found in the various distributions. We prefer to call a cat, a cat, and a GNU, a GNU. ;-) The purpose of the FAQ is to provide information on the Linux kernel and avoid debates on e.g. semantics issues. Further discussion of the relationship between GNU software and Linux can be found at BTW, it seems many people forget that the linux kernel mailing list is a forum for discussion of kernel-related matters, not GNU/Linux in general; please do not bring up this subject on the list. [...] GNU/Linux distributions are usually based on [...] except for kernels included in GNU/Linux distributions which [...] (Genium (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

There is a large and longstanding consensus on Wikipedia that we use the most common name which is Linux. If you don't agree then then the correct procedure is to start a discussion on changing this on Talk:Linux so all articles on Linux would be changed and not piecemeal change individual articles, but first you need to read all the 32 archives for that page, plus Talk:Linux/Name and Talk:Linux/Referring to this article. You will notice at the bottom of Talk:Linux that this was again recently brought up and again opposed. Basically it doesn't matter to Wikipedia what the FSF and Richard Stallman say, it matters what is in common use. For example if General Motors decided to call their products "autodynes", Wikipedia would not change all references to "cars" to "autodynes", not even in articles on GM products, because the common usage is still "cars". - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I've already reverted 3 times, so I won't do it again, but it appears we have an editor bent on edit-warring to insist it should be "GNU/Linux". The behavior (including the socks he appears to be using) has been reported at WP:AN3#User:Boot3414 reported by User:Msnicki (Result: ). Msnicki (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. As described above the place to fight this war is at Talk:Linux and gain a new consensus, not here in a minor, peripheral article. At this point this edit warring becomes nothing more than plain old vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I think using GNU/Linux is needlessly verbose, except in this case. When I came to this article I expected the term GNU/Linux to be used. For every other distro the term linux only makes sense. For this distro it is insulting to call it anything but GNU/Linux. Of course now I see I cannot be bold since I'd be mistaken for a sock puppet. Yay wikipedia. (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Unclear notability[edit]

I dare to day this distro is pretty low on the "notability index". We have pretty much zero coverage by the media and not anything that can be classified as "reliable sources". In all fairness, if we were strict with the rules, this probably should be deleted... --Jerebin (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated in my edit summary when removing the tag I believe that having a complete profile on the WP:RS DistroWatch qualifies as "significant coverage" coverage that establishes notability. WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I propose, based on this, that the tag be removed again, but if you disagree then I would suggest sending the article to WP:AFD for a full debate. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think having a profile at DistroWatch hardly qualifies as "significant coverage". While Distrowatch has some reliability, it can hardly be called a "reliable source" in this context, especially since you can just buy the placing. And even if DistroWatch was to be considered a "reliable source", as you correctly quote, "received significant coverage in reliable sources" (plural), so neither we have significant coverage nor reliable source(s). I'm not interested in deleting this, and I don't think it would be a good idea to go to AFD just for a "full debate". I just wanted **some** evidence of why this is "important", but apparently all I see is that it is "blessed" by the FSF. --Jerebin (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There is another Linux distro that is going though AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parabola GNU/Linux. This bears on this article because the general thought is that DistroWatch listings do not confer notability, for the reasons you bring up above. I am waiting to see a pronouncement on this by the closing admin there, which should happen on Saturday 21 January 2012. Based on what happens there we should probably make an assessment of this article for AFD. To be honest if the DistroWatch listing does not confer notability then this short-lived and now dormant distro has few claims to fame. - Ahunt (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parabola GNU/Linux AFD was closed as "no consensus". The closing admin indicated that DistroWatch listings probably do not confer notability as these can be purchased, but that the FSF listing may confer notability. Based on that I am not going to send this to AFD. Also worthy of note, gNewSense has a new project head, with the aim of getting it going again, and I added some text and a ref about this to the article. It will be interesting to see if they issue a new release in the near future. - Ahunt (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There are many news articles available for inclusion on approved sources, e.g.
Palosirkka (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

rms uses gNewSense out-ta the box[edit]

I hate to sound derisory but rms's obvious overall endorsement of the gNewSense distro is not entirely genuine as it evades the question of all of the other gnu/distros that the gnu team, of which rms is a part of, has tested out of the box, on reportedly Power-PC's. I find that this blights that very nerve of existence the gNewSense O/S provides as it is possible to use QEMU to allow for other distros to be used as a modular integration to the overall package. This progression thru the functionality of the distro qualifies a "significant change" to the personas that the distro encapsulates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to get at. kgoetz (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Me neither. Perhaps you can explain yourself more clearly. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Words to avoid per GNU GFSD[edit]

This GNU/Linux distribution qualifies as a GNU Guidelines for Free System Distributions (GNU GFSD) [6]. This guideline calls to avoid certain terms [7][8], two of which can be found in the Template:infobox OS:

  • source_model
  • marketing_target

I have unsuccessfully commented out them with references to the GNU GFSD with something like this (with and without [9] links):

| marketing_target       = <!-- GNU GFSD committed distribution - -->
| source_model           = <!-- GNU GFSD committed distribution - -->

Despite name-calling like "spam" and "vandalism" when using these license references in the Template:infobox OS, the problem calls for attention. If I haven't used the right method to signal the problem, what method should I use? Is there a way to raise the issue that follows rules but isn't a hopeless dead end? --David Hedlund (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_OS#Source_model, was answered, the whole question is, is there an issue ? If people want to know if they get access to the source code they can now quickly look that up, and in general for most packages the more important item in the template is the actual used licences and from that license type people can retrieve what the development method is, so the writer of GNU guideline should scroll down to the bottom of the template next time to conclude that there is no reason for confusion. As for including links to the GNU guidelines in the template, aldo we reference often to GNU if there is a reason for, Wikipedia templates follow Wikipedia guidelines so adding external guidelines to this template without consensus is not done Cheers Mion (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User:Mion. I took these out because what goes in the infobox in any given article or series of articles is determined by Wikipedia policy and consensus, not by some third party like GNU or FSF. FSF has a long history of trying to get Wikipedia articles to spread its doctrine here, but that is against consensus. As I noted in my edit summaries, Wikipedia policy is not set by GNU or FSF and links to what they want said should not be inserted into info boxes as an attempt to get editors to conform to GNU or FSF dogma. It is WP:POV and doesn't respect Wikipedia editing policy, particularly WP:CONSENSUS. It is spamming GNU and FSF dogma and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia obeys the open source doctrine which calls for making free software appear marginal. But this could be changed of course; could my suggestions be applied if the author of gNewSense explicitly told Wikipedia not to force them express those terms on the gNewSense article? --David Hedlund (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
No, of course not. Wikipedia is independent and doesn't take instructions on what article should read like from the subjects of the articles, that would be a conflict of interest. Basically Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a PR vehicle. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ahunt: You are using Wikpedia as a PR vehicle for "open source", Wikipedia's fiercely maintained "independence" applies only in certain directions. --David Hedlund (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I don't understand your point here. Wikipedia articles look the way they do because of WP:CONSENSUS, this prevents people using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for their own personal crusades. If you feel strongly about this issue I suggest you start your own blog where you are free to push any WP:POV you like. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOX is a good point to mention as is PR on Open-source software (where this discussion belongs), hopefully i remember this well, it was up to 2008 that mainly the FSF went to court to defend the licenses used, not many people mentioned OSI at all, (described in Open Source Initiative) and since Adobe/Google/Mozilla joined OSI we see claims like "The Open Source Initiative's (OSI) definition is recognized[who?] as the standard or de facto definition." on Open-source software, that article looks more like advertising than consensus to me. Mion (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Date format in table[edit]

The dates in the table under "Versions" are using the ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD).[10] May Ahunt or another editor state the reason to use this format? (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, it wasn't me that instituted that formatting. I generally prefer D-M-Y as it is the most clear to all readers. - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
That would be a good reason and the English Wikipedia does this. However, are there any sources stating that D-M-Y is the most clear to readers, either English or international? (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)