From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Linux (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Top-importance).
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Linux is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Linux at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
WikiProject Open (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Linux is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former good article Linux was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Why does "Lynix" redirect here?[edit]

Does it mean anything? If it's just a misspelling, isn't that something for the search engine to deal with? (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess it does no harm to have this redirect and there's nowhere better for it to redirect to. Tayste (edits) 20:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello! Well, "Lynix" isn't described in the target article, and search engines return nothing usable for the term; thus, it just introduces confusion without serving any purpose. With all that in mind, I've tagged the redirect with {{db}}, proposing its deletion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
"I guess it does no harm to have this redirect"
Lynix should redirect to the Lynx disambiguation (animal, weapon, browser, etc.) if at all. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Both seem unlikely. But the typo (accidently inserting an "i") seems even less likely than a misspelling of a homophone. Google agrees, suggesting "linux" not "lynx" for a search for "lynix". Tayste (edits) 04:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus has been reached. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I propose merging Criticism of Linux with Linux the Criticism article has been tagged for not meeting NPOV and both articles would be better served merged together. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached. We can get a 3rd party if we need to , but I am putting the merge tag on since the merge discussion is still going onBryce Carmony (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose- The Linux article is already long and the merged article would be even longer. The first thing proposed would be a split. If Criticism of Linux has issues then it needs fixing, not merging. - Ahunt (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
If the Article is too long the fork should happen along content lines not POV lines. If we need to make a "history of Linux" page and divert content there we can. but saying the division will happen along the lines of view point is a violation of Neutral Point of View. NPOV trumps Article length. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- These are distinct topics. Linux should be about linux in its current form, with brief mentions of history and criticisms. Incidentally History of linux already exists, so content here should not duplicate its content. Tayste (edits) 20:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, generally, I agree with Ahunt. I add that "functional" splits are completely normal, common, and the Microsoft articles already used as an example of that in the past. Further, I'd go on to suggest, that were any merging to be done in this area, then Criticism of desktop Linux should be merged back in to Criticism of Linux. "Criticism of Linux" looks a bit bare, and unevenly weighted to a non-neutral critic (MS), but oh well, so it goes in the industry. I can "deal" with it. My feelings really aren't hurt. "Criticism of Linux" needs work, fleshing out, as it were.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    You are correct that there is a distinction of topic, the distinction is we have allowed ourselves to make 2 articles for 2 different POVs instead of 1 article for 1 POV. Historical criticisms of course can be added in a NPOV to the History of Linux Page. but any criticism that is current should be merged here. if it is sourced and verified we can write it in the NPOV and merge it into the content of the boby. if it has a bad source or is unverifiable we can eliminate it. Neutral Point of view isn't "Neutral Praise one article" and "Neutral Criticism other article" That isn't what Wikipedia is about. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    There are many criticism articles in Wikipedia. NPOV applies to how WP deals with the content in the sources, not the topic itself. I agree that Criticism of desktop Linux should be merged with Criticism of Linux. But neither should be merged with Linux (which should also be neutral, not a "praise" article). Tayste (edits) 22:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    There are roughly 150 "criticism of..." Articles. 150/300,000,000+ shows that Criticism of articles are exceptions not norms. Can we agree it would be better to have a wikipedia with 3 million articles that all have a NPOV of positive, nuetral, and critical information. or would it be better to have a Wikipedia with 6 million articles where criticism is in a "contra-article" and non criticism is in the "article". That isn't what Wikipedia is about. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    Articles on nematodes are also the exception not the norm, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any. Your view on "what Wikipedia is about" matters less than Wikipedia's own view, as documented in the five pillars, one of which is that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. "Linux" and "Criticisms of Linux" are two different topics, with different audiences of readers. Both should be (separate) articles, both written from a NPOV. Given that the topic for the latter is controversial/opinionated, that article should be written with additional care to maintain NPOV, e.g. by also citing sources that respond to criticisms. Merging it here doesn't solve that. Tayste (edits) 23:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree that they are 2 different topics. Here's an example. Art criticism is not titled "Criticism of Art" because Art is the modifier and Criticism is the object being modified. "Criticism of Linux" and "Linux" the word "Linux" is the object in both. So they aren't two separate topics they are the same topic. So can a single topic have more than one article? of course. Some topics have dozens of articles. but what we don't allow is for that same topic to be treated twice by two seperate POV. we call that Content Forking and it's bad because it goes against NPOV.Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    Well, I've said my piece, so I'll wait now for views from other editors. Good luck with your campaign to have all "Criticism of X" articles either removed or merged with their main articles. For what it's worth, I'll point out that Art criticism refers to the practice of voicing criticisms of individual works of art, not of the concept of Art itself. Tayste (edits) 23:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    PS: a better example is to compare Islam and Criticism of Islam. Tayste (edits) 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    I appreciate your input, Criticizing art is a profession, a science, and an art in and of itself. that's why it's the Art Criticism. not Criticism of Art. When you look at the article criticism of art has "methodology" "history" things like that. not "This one painting sucks according to so and so" "So and so said this painting is ugly" that's not what art criticism is. If we felt that the criticism of Linux was such a flushed out concept that we called it Linux criticism. maybe we could make a great article out of it. but as is I just see it as an attempt to white wash the Linux article. Thanks for giving your input it really is helpful. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As Ahunt already explained above, Linux article is already quite long so merging anything into it would be against WP:SIZESPLIT, for example. Also, if an article has some issues, merging it with another article isn't the way for fixing those issues. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    A question for Ahunt, if you could indulge a hypothetical. if you had to chose between violating NPOV and violating a guideline what would you chose.Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'd choose neither, as it's quite easy to go by the guidelines. Also, WP:NPOV is just one of the guidelines/policies. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    So you're alright with us merging the 2 articles on the same topic to be 1 article on the 1 topic. good. I'm glad we have you onboard Dsimic Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    Well, I'm not sure why are you trying to twist my words? I've clearly expressed that I do not support the merger proposal. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    Let's see if we can find where we disagree. 1- do you agree its a bad idea to have 2 articles for the same exact topic? if so, what are the 2 topics in "Criticism of Linux" and "Linux" to me it looks like they have the same topic ( Linux ) but I want to understand your viewBryce Carmony (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    There isn't much new to be discussed about the whole thing. My opinion is that having two separate articles is a good thing, as their topics aren't the same. Moreover, having two separate articles keeps much of the politics out of the main article, Linux, which is also already quite long so merging more stuff into it would be against WP:SIZESPLIT. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    Having 2 articles for the same topic is a content fork. which is against guidelines and npov. should we have 2 articles for the holocaust? one that we don't allow any "criticism" in and one that we put all the criticism in? it makes no sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    Please have a look at WP:SIZESPLIT, it allows such "two-article" layouts. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    that's what I'm proposing, we split the content, the difference is you want to split it by "criticism" and "not criticism" ( a pov split) and I want to split it by topic. like (history of linux, linux products, linux hardware, etc ) the content split is prefferable to a POV split since a pov split inevitably takes us away form NPOV. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    Nope. What you've proposed is a merger. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons outlined above and particular by user Aladdin Sane. See also WP:SUMMARYSTYLE: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own" and, of course, WP:SPINOFF and WP:SPLIT. Wikipedia supports splits like this where they make sense either because of article length or context, both of which apply here. (This is starting to look like a consensus). andy (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
See but you aren't making a subtopic... you are keeping the SAME topic. let me explain
  • Linux = the topic of this article is Linux
  • Criticism of Linux = the topic of this article is Linux ( modified by criticism as the POV [not NPOV])
  • Linux Criticism = the topic of this article is Criticism ( modified by Linux as the type of crticism )
Imagine if we had articles "Praise of Linux" we couldn't allow for that. but we allow for criticism of? please. we can create 1 article for the topic of linux. we can make NEW topics ( like history of linux ) but you don't get to say "NPOV is too hard" and give up on it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed. You say "Criticism of Linux = the topic of this article is Linux" but of course that's not true. The topic is criticism of Linux, which is why that's the title of the article. According to your logic all articles on subtopics should be merged into the same main article if their titles are of the form "subtopic of X". From this absurd premise you are constructing specious arguments. andy (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Linux and its status as an operating system[edit]

@Kb333: Regarding your edit, please read these two archived discussions, which are also linked in the archiving notice box on top of this talk page: Talk:Linux/Archive 41 § Page move: GNU/Linux and Talk:Linux/Name. These discussions reflect a rather broad consensus regarding Linux and its status as an operating system, and its relation with the Linux kernel. As a side note, please also be aware of the WP:3RR rule. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dsimic: firstly I'm not a zealot, I know all about Linux based systems, Linux and GNU. I know that GNU and Linux are totally different, but also I dont like when the people give the whole thing to Linux for an OS just using it. so as a neutral POV, any OS that uses Linux kernel is not an OS part of Linux, but it's an OS WHICH CONTAINS Linux or better a Linux based OS: so thats why you should avoid the term "Linux OS" or "Linux distribution". correct me if I'm wrong. Kb333 (talk contribs) 27 March 2015
Have you read the discussions linked above, in their entire lengths? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
We have a very longstanding and broad consensus here on Wikipedia that operating systems using the Linux kernel are called Linux and Linux distributions. Please read WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:LINUX, this talk:Linux page including all the archives of that page, to get the history of the consensus as well as Talk:Linux/Name. Please read them. - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand from that, that you are pushing your own definitions and POVs dictatorially and restricting the others, instead of trying to make those informations be more neutral and correct. Kb333 (talk contribs) 27 March 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, even the fact that the sky is mostly blue is someone's POV, right? Why should we use "blue" to name a color? Why shouln't that color be instead called "xyled", for example? That's why people discuss the things and follow the conclusions – and our conclusions regarding Linux vs. GNU/Linux are available from those archived discussions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Who is the "you" in "you are pushing your own definitions..."? Wikipedia's policies and guidelines require editors to reach a broad and rational consensus on such an issue, and this they have done. All I see here are a couple of individuals who have the grace to point you to the discussions. If you believe that insufficient WP:WEIGHT has been given to the distinctions, that is a different issue. I am inclined to agree with you there up to a point, although one needs also to consider other projects/organisations and their licensed code which appears in a typical "GNU/Linux" OS build, such as the Apache Foundation, BSD, MIT, Oracle, etc. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I was meaning by "you" anyone here who was restricting my edits behind a "Linux OS" naming monopoly. You still don't understand what I mean, I'm not a "GNU/Linux" spammer, I'm rejecting the naming of Linux as an OS because as was been said, the systems that contains Linux can contain other softwares not just GNU ones but also others whether free or proprietary. So naming the whole system as Linux will not give equal mention to people who had developed the biggest part of such operating system using that kernel whether free software communities creating essential components like Wayland, Java, KDE, X11, Bash, GRUB, GLibc, GCC, MySQL, OpenOffice, GNOME, GNU Coreutils, Apache to be distributed in free OS like Debian, or proprietary software companies distributing their nonfree software along with the resulting free software inside their own OS like SteamOS and nonfree Android. so Why should we use the term "Linux distribution" while MS Windows and OSX are not called NT or Darwin distros? I hope that you have understood what I was meaning. Kb333 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong, Kb333, but you seem to be mostly asking questions like "why the sky is not xyled?" Well, because people call its color "blue". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It's true that the sky is blue when the weather is sunny, but its color changes to grey when it becomes cloudy. Kb333 (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Consensus-building does have rules. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have a lot to say about things like reliable sourcing and giving content due weight. Tertiary sources such as introductory text books and specialist magazines are the best places to judge the common terms in use and the due weight to be given to less common approaches. These may give a nod to GNU/Linux and related issues but they almost all use the plain description "Linux" when talking of the OS. This is consistent with the consensus reached here - as it should be. I guess if you don't like it, write to the editor of Linux Format and get him to change his mind. Then we can follow suit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Such tertiary sources tend not to describe Android as "Linux", even though it is no more nor less Linux than the GNU-based builds and many Android code hacks have found their way upstream into the Linux kernel. This is bizarrely inconsistent, but here on wikipedia we just have to close our eyes and swallow. Urgh! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was so happy when Android's Binder was merged into the Linux kernel mainline in kernel version 3.19. :) Speaking of Android, more precisely some kind of a consensus is that Android is Linux, while it isn't a true Linux distribution. So, yay! :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Finally, I have to say that anyone who is restricting other edits behind a dirty consensus, is a weak and looser guy who doesn't want to improve the world nor himself enjoying the slavery of the control of big brother and its resulting lies, rather than together fighting for making the infos more correct and neutral. I'm really sad, to find a lot of people including you, who are together trying to be non honest nor serious and pushing wrong informations: the thing which is currently a big threat to the neutrality and truth of information for many people visiting such related articles. Also that can reflect that you are not skilled nor professional, when considering a kernel as an OS: which can appear like a joke. Of course Linux is a kernel, and not an operating system. I'm not the only one to say that: there is a lot of honnest and well experienced people who can tell you the same thing. Kb333 (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The consensus isn't "dirty" as you're calling it. Please read your own words – you should seriously reconsider and recollect your own thoughts, instead of calling other people "not skilled nor professional". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Kb333, your editing borders with what's known as disruptive editing, and your edits paired with a clear lack of constructive discussion may be seen as edit warring. Also, your posts include personal attacks, which are totally unnecessary as our focus should be to comment on the content, not on the contributors. With all that, you're presenting yourself in a bad light, and risk to be reported and become blocked. Please see this as a friendly assessment of your behavior. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Wait, so is Linux just a kernel, or an operating system? (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh wait, this article is talking about GNU and the Linux kernel as a whole, which is also called Linux. I understand now! (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Only idiots like you call it as "Linux", not all the people: or maybe the people who calls Mac OSX as Darwin do so .... this article in reality talks only about Linux (a kernel and not an os) and the operating systems based on it, but forcing the definition of Linux mainly as an OS seems unjustified: and it's clear that no one should trust this nonfree encyclopedia where the consensus is gaming the system. (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Please stay away from personal attacks, see WP:PERSONAL for more details. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The GNU/Linux redirect[edit]

An editor has changed the redirect at GNU/Linux to point to GNU rather than Linux. I reverted it because when people type GNU/Linux into Wikipedia, what most of them mean is the subject of this article. This is shown by all of the people trying to change the title of this article to GNU/Linux; half the discussions on this article's talk page wouldn't be about the naming of the article if they thought this article wasn't about GNU/Linux. I didn't want to just blindly revert, however, so I wanted to start a talk page discussion to see if there was any chance of a consensus or compelling reason why GNU/Linux should point to another article, such as GNU. - Aoidh (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

GNU/Linux is the FSF-approved term for what everyone else in the world calls Linux, so the redirect needs to point to Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Second that. GNU/Linux needs to redirect to Linux, not to GNU. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Much as the rest of the world ought to know better, it doesn't and we have to live with that fact. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, it should point to Linux as that's what people expect and what the term refers to. BethNaught (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Aoidh: Then your only solution for that was by reporting me like a jerk, right?

If you are an anti-GNU zealot, then that's your own problem.

The truth about why GNU/Linux should link to GNU, is simply because as cited there, GNU/Linux is a set of free software replacements for Unix components, including the free versions of Linux kernel and other graphics sofware, which can be compiled and assembled together in the form of GNU/Linux distros, the thing what the free software movement worked for: and which other Linux based OS like Android didn't, and aimed instead to contain a lot of nonfree software and violate the GPLv2 by forking linux to a nonfree android kernel.

since GNU/Linux is different from other Linux variants and Linux is just a family of OS using the linux kernel: then GNU/Linux shouldn't link to Linux. and shortly GNU is an OS done for promoting freedom: that's why we find it shipped with other kernels instead like hurd or freebsd kernel like in Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and Debian GNU/Hurd: the thing which a bunch of editors wants to eliminate by refering to Debian mainly just as a "Linux distribution" which is TOTALLY WRONG AND BIASED.

Anyone here including you, who is tracking my edits and reverting it for personal reasons, like what you did for the Free software portal, GNOME and Debian, should at least be honnest and know his own limits. Kb333 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone should be aware of their own limits, including you, Kb333. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I have warned User:Kb333 for his incivil post above. - Ahunt (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Kb333 seems to have returned from his block for edit-warring and is right back to edit-warring over this redirect once again. I have warned him on his talk page and asked him to make his case here instead of continuing his edit-war. He is already at two reverts for the redirect so far today. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Kb333, please read the WP:DEADHORSE essay; sometimes, it's simply much better to leave things as-is. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Kb333 seems to be on an edit-war spree and needs a block. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
...and User:Kb333 is blocked for two weeks. Given that I think we can wrap this discussion up as a consensus that this redirect should remain pointing to Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Please also have a look at the Tux article, which recently had its "moments". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Might be looking at a WP:SPI if that continues. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The term GNU/Linux exists for say that a traditional Linux distribution is not only a distribution of a Linux operating system but also a distribution of the GNU operating system, and, as well there is an article for Android (operating system) at Wikipedia, which also is a Linux system, then, GNU/Linux should be or a separated article as well as Android is, or at least be a disambiguation page. In the past discussion, non-GNU Linux based systems were not common for have separated article, but now it does.--Luizdl Talk 22:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what Linux distribution is for. It's not called GNU/Linux, however, because that's a minority POV term that isn't used by most reliable sources, but Linux is a summary-style article that gives an overview of the entire subject, and articles like Linux distribution cover some of the more specific details. - Aoidh (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, I just suggest that the redirect could be at least a disambiguation page, linking to GNU and to Linux, with a "see also" section to the naming controversy article.--Luizdl Talk 14:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest that a dab link at Linux would be more appropriate, something like, For the GNU OS and GNU tool chain, see GNU. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hm, why should anyone landing at the Linux article be confused and actually be searching for the GNU article? Hatnotes are used when there's high potential for a confusion between the subjects; I'd say that isn't the case here. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This would obviously be someone looking for information about "GNU/Linux" and getting redirected here. But we don't know at this stage if they might be thinking more of the GNU toolchain, the Linux kernel, the relationship between the two or the whole build. So we need to offer all that. Of these, only the GNU specifics are not discussed in this article, hence the value of this particular dab link. IMHO. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, however, this is the primary topic for "Linux", overwhelmingly so, in fact, so this particular title could not be a dab page. This is reinforced by WP:DABCONCEPT. There already exists a Linux (disambiguation) page, which is linked at the top of this article, so any value given by such a dab page already exists. - Aoidh (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you miss the point. There is a difference between a dab link at the top of an article as opposed to a dab page with nothing else in it. There is also a difference between a reader following up on "Linux" and a reader following up on "GNU/Linux". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
A dab page with nothing else in it at this exact title would be contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on dab pages, because this is the primary topic for this title. That is the point, and how such things are determined on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I agree with you entirely. Did I write something to suggest that I don't? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see the statistics for Linux and GNU/Linux pages. Based on that, not too many people land on the Linux article by following the GNU/Linux redirect, which is used when one searches the Wikipedia for "GNU/Linux". That's another argument against the inclusion of a hatnote. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines on how frequently a page needs to be visited before it can be considered significant for this purpose? I do not regard a visitor as less important because they have a less commonplace interest than most. I would argue that the relatively low frequency of such redirects demonstrates a general ignorance of the usage and all the more need for a hatnote or similiar disambig link. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
There are no strict guidelines for sure, but common sense applies. Thus, a quite low frequency of visits can't be a reasonable argument for the inclusion of an additional hatnote, especially as we already have "for other uses, see Linux (disambiguation)" as a hatnote. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But the existing hatnote is disambiguating "Linux". I am talking about readers following up on the text title "GNU/Linux" which, as you will observe, begins with the triple glyph "GNU". Linux (disambiguation) is singularly unhelpful to such a visitor: it does not (and should not) attempt to disambiguate or even mention the GNU bit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, no hatnotes can guide the readers unable to comprehend such things on their own after reading an article. Articles are supposed to be read by the visitors, which is why we're writing them in the first place, not to serve as promotional entry points for other articles. Also, if someone is really interested in "GNU" as a term, he or she will specifically search the Wikipedia for "GNU". Problem solved. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Ahhh! I think I get it now! That word "promotional" gives it away. You think I am a GNU fanatic pushing my luck? You think I lack good faith? I wondered where the antipathy was coming from. No, I am here as a wikipedian who respects GNU fanatics neither more nor less than I respect anybody else, such as your good self. The whole point about a hatnote is of course that it does serve as an entry to another page, just not a "promotional" one as you put it. Also, note that the visitor I am talking about has already gone to GNU/Linux and been redirected: note the "Linux" in their interest at this point, as well as the GNU. As I wrote earlier, "This would obviously be someone looking for information about "GNU/Linux" and getting redirected here. But we don't know at this stage if they might be thinking more of the GNU toolchain, the Linux kernel, the relationship between the two or the whole build. So we need to offer all that. Of these, only the GNU specifics are not discussed in this article, hence the value of this particular dab link. IMHO." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't assume they think you lack good faith. To put "GNU" at the top of this article does come across as promotional, in the sense that it doesn't fit with the purpose of a hatnote. GNU/Linux redirects to this article because this is the subject that GNU/Linux refers to. If someone wants to arrive at GNU, it's found within this article in the appropriate location, but GNU itself and GNU/Linux are not similar terms for the same thing by any means. - Aoidh (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually it does, the term GNU/Linux was invented to say the OS is the GNU operating system running with the Linux Kernel, making it both GNU and Linux based system. Many well known distros like Debian call it as GNU/Linux when uses Linux kernel, Debian GNU/kFreeBSD when uses the Free BSD kernel, and even Debian GNU/Hurd when uses the own GNU kernal--Luizdl Talk 21:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It does what? What does that have to do with a hatnote? What you're describing is already covered in relevant articles, which are linked in this article. - Aoidh (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem here is that the redirect named GNU/Linux is pointed to here, and when someone searches for GNU/Linux is redirect to this article that is past was referring only to GNU/Linux system, historically called just as Linux, but now this article is about to any linux-based distribution including those that have nothing to do with GNU such as Android, Web OS, embedded devices etc. It should be a disambiguation page, but if we keep as redirect, should at least have a dab link as Steelpillow suggested.--Luizdl Talk 22:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but you haven't explained why there should be a dab link, because what you're suggesting be linked is already linked in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It may well be linked already, but why should a reader have to plow through half the wrong article before finding a link to the right one? This is exactly the kind of thing that dab links, such as in hatnotes, are there to resolve. It's not as if they wanted to come here, we forcibly redirected then from GNU/Linux, the least we can do is to show some courtesy in disambiguating which half of that is their core interest. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
GNU/Linux isn't "half GNU, half Linux", and it's not as if GNU/Linux redirects to an article on the Linux kernel. It's redirecting to what most people and most reliable sources actually call GNU/Linux: Linux. As Linux is also the name of the kernel, the kernel hatnote is there to direct readers to a topic with the same name as this one, Linux. That's why that hatnote is there and a GNU one isn't; there's no kernel called GNU/Linux, no other article with that same title that may be confused for this one, and that's the purpose of a hatnote. Someone typing in GNU/Linux wants the article about that topic, and that's what this this article is. Placing a hatnote to GNU isn't a "courtesy" because there's no cause to include it, and this isn't the wrong article as you put it; this is the article which covers the topic that some people refer to as GNU/Linux. So if, as you suggest, their core interest is GNU/Linux, this is the article they mean to arrive at. It's not the "wrong" one, so trying to "fix" it by ignoring Wikipedia convention and placing a hatnote to an article that has no business being a hatnote is not the answer. If you're suggesting that they may be confused as to why GNU/Linux redirects here, that is answered in the lede of the article, the most prominent place of the entire article that many readers view before they even see the hatnote, so there's no ambiguity that needs clarification here, further reinforcing the fact that such a hatnote serves no purpose for the reader. - Aoidh (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You ask Luizdl (talk · contribs) why, then when I explain, you argue against a case I did not make. I do not "suggest that their core interest is GNU/Linux", but have twice before pointed out that someone who gets redirected by that page might have any of four possible core interests in mind. This article meets three of those possibilties, it does not meet the fourth (viz. "Where is this GNU half of GNU/Linux coming from?"). I suggested a dab link in general, somebody mentioned a hatnote specifically, you find that hatnote promotional and, apparently, immoral. I don't care how it is done as long as the poor visitor does not have to plow through a lot of information addressing the other three use cases. That mention of GNU/Linux in the lead does not even have a link to the GNU article (the fourth use case). Would it be acceptable to rephrase it so that a link can be added there? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't argue against a case you did not make, I addressed what you said concerning "which half of that is their core interest". As I said, ""Where is this GNU half of GNU/Linux coming from?" is answered in the lede: "The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to describe the operating system". It then includes a link to GNU/Linux naming controversy, which more than addresses the answer to your question, albeit not in the way that some would like. It doesn't include a link to GNU in the lede because it's not about GNU, it's about the name GNU/Linux. A wikilink to the GNU Project is in the very first subsection of the article, The "poor visitor" doesn't need to be overwhelmed with irrelevant links when they're already found in the article proper, that is the issue. Also, please mind things like the "immoral" comment, as there was no cause for that. - Aoidh (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You point me to WP:RGW, which in full is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting Great Wrongs then you deny there is a moral dimension here. That is a flat self-contradiction. The rest of your post suffers equally broken logic, as already explained. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Because you claimed this was the "wrong" article. But if these are the kind of comments you're going to give, there's no point in continuing this line of discussion, especially if "you don't agree with me so your logic is broken" is the best argument you can make when your points are addressed. You've given no compelling reason why there should be a hatnote, especially not one in line with Wikipedia's conventions on the matter, and have no consensus for anything of the sort. Given your responses, I have nothing more to say on the matter. - Aoidh (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What should we do about someone looking for information about "GNU/Linux" and getting redirected here? (i.e. back on topic) I have suggested that we don't know at this stage if they might be thinking more of the GNU toolchain, the Linux kernel, the relationship between the two or the whole build. So we need to offer all that. Of these, only the GNU specifics are not discussed in this article, hence the need for this particular dab link, IMHO. I have no strong view on the appropriate mechanism (hatnote, rephrasing the lead, etc.) and am quite happy for it to be low-key, but I do think that the visitor wondering about the GNU part should be offered a link to the GNU article earlier than at present. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As it has been already explained more than once, that's already covered in the article's lead section, together with links to appropriate articles describing the whole thing further. Please realise that there's no need to go over and over the same thing. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
No, that is wrong. I would hardly be suggesting a change if the issue was, as you claim, already covered. At least one other editor has supported my suggestion. You and another editor diverted this thread by attacking things I did not say, sure, but I am still seeking comments on what I did say. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You need to stop the with incivility. Given your "immoral" comment, accusing others of attacking things you did not say comes off as disingenuous. You raised concerns, those concerns were addressed. Just because the article doesn't cover it in a way you want doesn't mean the material isn't covered. The "GNU specifics" are discussed in this article, and "the GNU part" has a link in the lede paragraph. There is no more prominent place for such a link, so yes, it is covered in the article and the GNU aspects are further elaborated in the actual article. I suggest you take your own advice and comment on this, and not other editors. - Aoidh (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The links in the lead referred to above are to the GNU/Linux naming controversy and the GNU General Public License. Neither of these is appropriate to the visitor I discuss. GNU itself and the GNU project first get linked to in the section on the User interface design. All I am suggesting is that such a link should be given sooner. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we consider this change to be some kind of a compromise? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, that is fine. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Great, I'm so glad that we've reached some kind of a compromise. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The largest installed base of all...[edit]

In the lead, we say, "Thanks to its dominance on smartphones, Android, which is built on top of the Linux kernel, has the largest installed base of all general-purpose operating systems.[14]" Does this mean that Android has the largest installed base of all general-purpose operating systems on mobile devices, or of all general-purpose operating systems on any hardware of any type? The reference to NetMarketShare shows a piechart with Android having a 51.04% market share for 'mobile + tablet'[1]. When I change the 'device type' to 'desktop', Windows has a 90.85% market share.[2] Unfortunately, if I select 'device type' = 'all' I get told that I cannot see this as I am not a subscriber. Is anyone here able to see the crucial figures to WP:Verify whether Android's dominance in mobile devices outdoes Windows' desktop dominance to justify our sentence as it stands? If it does, should we remove the ambiguity and make the sentence exactly clear as to which installed base we are talking about? --Nigelj (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Based on the references in Android (operating system) article, it should be that Android currently has the largest installed base of all general-purpose operating systems. Just as the sentence reads, not limited to any particular device type (mobile, desktop, etc.). — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)