Talk:Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleLinux 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 21, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 14, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 23, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
March 14, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 12, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 29, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 7, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Linux and GNU/Linux[edit]

I still do not understand why you are using Linux as the name of the article devoted to the full operating system instead of GNU+Linux. Following the same pattern the macOS article should be called XNU. Source: OSX Internals. Image of macOS stack. GNU is the equivalent to Darwin libraries and syscalls while Linux is the equivalent to Mach (kernel) plus BSD kernel parts, that is, Linux is equivalent to XNU. It would be more logical to have this article talking about Linux and then an article for each operating system using Linux as its kernel. For instance, Android already exists. The Linux page would serve as pointers to the rest of pages. This article creates confusion and forgets an historical fact: the fork of the GNU C library. Only during three years calling Linux the whole operating system made sense.History of glibc and Linux libc (it is a blog post with references). Using the most common result in Google does not make sense. Additionally it is an ad populum fallacy. Filiprino (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, but we have been over this dozens of times in the past decade and by 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; GNU+Linux is hardly used by anyone, so there is little in the way of WP:RS for that. To get the full background you should read all the archives of this talk 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. - Ahunt (talk)
I already know that argument, but I have clearly stated that the current consensus is biased and plainly wrong. I have brought up facts stating that the current definition of Linux is wrong, because it is not coherent with the class of kernels it belongs to. And of course, GNU/Linux is misrepresented in the English Wikipedia (please, do not generalize to Wikipedia). And don't make me start with ad hominem falacies, please. This article does not respect the definition of a Unix-like operating system. It extends the name of the kernel to the rest of the operating system, something which does not make sense, as I already stated (read bibliography and history). This article makes Wikipedia a low quality source of information. Additionally, talking about a controversy is unjustified and makes things more complicated by impregnating with negative connotations the FSF and other people stances with respect to the usage of the term GNU-Linux and Linux. I do not care about GNU{/,-,+,*,:}Linux (pick your symbol). I care about misrepresentation and misinformation. Where could I get this consensus changed? Scientific proof refutes this article name and most of its contents. Thanks. Filiprino (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
You get the consensus changed right here, but you are going to have to come up with some more convincing arguments than you have done so far. We work on the "common name" for a subject (not the the largest Google Search result or even the official or "correct name", but the common name in use in society in general), so saying that the common name is imprecise or wrong, or inconsistent with Mac or Unix is not going to prevail. You need to show that the common name is actually something else. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
but you are going to have to come up with some more convincing arguments than you have done so far
Like what? I mean, all relevant sources from the IEEE and ACM have the consensus of using GNU-Linux, not Linux, because Linux is a kernel, not an OS. So you should explain better what you mean, because WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA state things like being precise, concise and consistent. Moreover, recognizability is not fulfilled because people familiar with the subject know that Linux is a kernel not an OS and the article keeps talking about an OS. If you want to read on the kernel you have to visit Linux kernel, which is absurd because Linux is a kernel. Naturalness can not be determined with tools like Google Trends because you have to do a semantic analysis of the results obtained to decide whether searches for GNU-Linux are done using the term "Linux". At least 3 out of 5 goals WP:CRITERIA are not fulfilled, unless the article contents are changed to talk about Linux, not GNU-Linux. As you can see, I am not advocating changing the title to GNU is Not Unix plus Linux, something which blatantly goes against WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. Filiprino (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME simply requires that we use the name that is commonly used; not the technically-correct name or the politically-correct name or the name advocated by any group or person, but the name in common everyday usage. If you go through all the archives as I linked above, you will see we have been around that one many times. In common use the name that describes all Linux-kernel-base operating systems is "Linux", which is why the article is located at the name. Unless you have any new evidence that the name in common use has changed then I think we are done here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Notice that I have not mentioned any technically-correct name nor politically-correct name. I have mentioned the naming conventions. You are bypassing all the goals explicited in WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. If I go back to the archives I will see you stating always the same imposing your own criteria. You are the only user that comes back again and again to impose his criteria without attending further reasons. Linux is used for the kernel and GNU-Linux is used for the operating system. You can not say otherwise because you do not have any source for stating that. Your personal opinion means nothing, but bypassing Wikipedia policies goes against Wikipedia policies.
This is false: The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system family, as well as specific distributions, to emphasize that most Linux distributions are not just the Linux kernel. Not only the FSF but many others call the OS correctly.
This is false: The defining component of a Linux distribution is the Linux kernel. A Linux distribution does not exist as a software package. What does exist are GNU-Linux distributions, or Android distributions or µlibc-Linux distributions.
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? Linux was originally developed for personal computers based on the Intel x86 architecture,
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? Because of the dominance of the Linux kernel-based Android OS on smartphones, Linux has the largest installed base of all general-purpose operating systems.
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? Linux is also the leading operating system on servers and other big iron systems such as mainframe computers, and the only OS used on TOP500 supercomputers (since November 2017, having before gradually eliminated all competitors)
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? It is used by around 2.3% of desktop computers.[21][22] The Chromebook, which runs the Linux kernel-based Chrome OS
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? Linux also runs on embedded systems—devices whose operating system is typically built into the firmware and is highly tailored to the system.
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? The development of Linux is one of the most prominent examples of free and open-source software collaboration. Filiprino (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? In 1991, while attending the University of Helsinki, Torvalds became curious about operating systems.[39] Frustrated by the licensing of MINIX, which at the time limited it to educational use only,[38] he began to work on his own operating system kernel, which eventually became the Linux kernel.
And I could continue with the whole article. This article mixes a lot of different operating systems in a single bag. The fact is that the different operating systems are incompatible between them, yet this article treats them as all being equal. For instance, supercomputers run GNU-Linux and phones run Android. Embedded systems run propietario OSes or FOSS ones like OpenWRT which is not GNU-Linux nor Android. This article talks about Linux, Android and GNU-Linux without any distinction, when there is a difference. Each OS must have his own page and this article should be devoted to Linux, not Linux, Android, GNU-Linux, OpenWRT and others. Filiprino (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay you have put down your position here. This talk page has lots of editors watching it, so let's see if anyone else agrees with you. - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
As a compromise might I recommend a comment in the lead such as "Linux is the common name given to GNU/Linux although <description of why there is technically a distinction>". Or if not that a section say "Use of the name Linux"Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I would like to contribute my stance. I've waited a long time to see if things will change, but I can't stand this anymore. Wikipedia's current concensus is to refer to the family of operating systems that use Linux as "Linux", not "GNU/Linux", therefore a comment like "Linux is the common name given to GNU/Linux" is inappropriate. If that is Wikipedia's concensus, I find it acceptable to refer to the OS family as simply "Linux". But what I don't accept is that the same should apply to the title of the article. What I'm saying here is that the name of the article should be, most of all, correct. Leaving aside the naming controversy, the article about the family of OSes should be titled "Linux (operating systems)" (pay attention to the plural form of the word "systems"), and the article about Linux itself (which, without stretching the meaning of the word to refer to anything else other than the technically correct meaning, refers to the Unix-like kernel) should be titled "Linux" or "Linux (kernel)". The articles should have a note in the lead section saying that technically the term refers to the kernel, but as of current concensus of Wikipedia editors, it is used to refer to the OS family (and also mentioning the fact that the correct name for the Linux kernel is "Linux" and not "Linux kernel", just as Linus Torvalds named it). Both of the articles should continue to use the terms "Linux" and "Linux kernel" to refer to the OS family and to the kernel, respectively, through the rest of the articles. In a nutshell: This has nothing to do with the content of the articles, but with their titles. There are various reasons why an article shouldn't be titled correctly but actually use a more popular name, but in this case, especially considering the naming controversy, it is much, much more important to title articles correctly. The issues User:Filiprino described on May 8, 2018, 14:56 UTC are another thing - leaving aside the naming controversy, Wikipedia articles must be unambiguous. --85.64.33.163 (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Filiprino, there are many operation systems that using Linux, calling only some of them the same name as kernel not just unfair or historically wrong, but misleading and tricky in any technical discussion around Linux topic. There are historical reasons why some people started to call all different distributions with the kernel name and can ignore absolute minority of non-GNU/Linux operation systems. I think it doesn't make sense to discuss it now. Now the most widely used OS with Linux kernel is Android. Cisco routers powered by NXOS is running on Linux (the kernel), project Nerves honestly states that it is allowing to ship your app in cross compiles Linux, while it's not GNU/Linux they are shipping. Calling Ubuntu, but not Andoid as Linux is just misleading, confusing for people, who are trying to research the topic. Linux is a kernel and a few tools in userspace, but not the operation system. I think the best solution in current situation is a generic page similar to Field for example. Linux page should ask what did you actually mean - Linux kernel, GNU/Linux operation system, or probably Linux Foundation. Stealps (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
No due to WP:COMMONNAME. GNU/Linux is not the common name for anything, so you can't shoehorn it in the back door with that argument, to mix a metaphor. - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Then why do we see information about Debian, Android, Chrome OS et.c? Linux is not a common name for those. There should be at least differentiation between the Linux project, and Linux-based operation systems to begin with. Stealps (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
That is already clearly explained right in the lede section of this article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Filiprino, plenty of arguments have been made that seem to swap the relative importance of GNU and Linux. It's clearly incorrect to refer to the GNU operating system, and indeed distributions of the GNU operating system packaged with the Linux kernel as simply 'Linux'. I'll happily concede however, that GNU isn't widely known vernacular for the set of operating system distributions. The problem is that Linux is often, but not always, the lowest common denominator (i.e. all use Linux, not all use GNU). The reason why I'd tend to agree with at least changing the name of the article to GNU/Linux and changing references to Android and other non-GNU operating systems to make it clear that they're often lumped together but are not the same, is that for what most people consider to be 'Linux' (Ubuntu, Debian, Gentoo, Fedora, RedHat etc) all are GNU, but not all are necessarily Linux. It's possible to use a different kernel and have functionally the same OS, but you cannot use any of these distributions without GNU on account of the base operating system and associated packages are GNU. It appears as though the issues arise when GNU and non-GNU operating systems are placed in the same article, but the article's main focus is on the distributions of the GNU operating system and not on the kernel. At present, whilst the article may 'work', it's sloppy to have actually incorrect information in an encyclopaedia. Tomtiger11 (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
As you note, "I'll happily concede however, that GNU isn't widely known vernacular for the set of operating system distributions" and that runs right into our Wikipedia policy on article naming at WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It's also at odds with WP:PRECISION. Linux is the name of the kernel, GNU is the operating system. The article does such a clumsy job of trying to deal with the fact that it's title is that of a kernel, that is often used to refer to GNU/Linux packaged together, but then also tries to cover operating systems other than GNU too - it is entitled Linux after all. At the moment, this page has information on it that confuses the idea of Linux being the kernel. In the design section, there's references to 'Linux kernel' but also GNU userland. There's an image that shows that there's such a thing as GNU/Hurd, but then labels GNU packaged with Linux as simply Linux. How can you talk about GNU/Hurd, the fact that from the userspace most users wouldn't see any difference between GNU running on Linux and GNU running on Hurd, without making it clear that when people talk about 'Linux' as an operating system, they're talking about GNU running on the Linux kernel. Almost the entire 'uses' section talks about Linux as a kernel, not 'Linux' as a GNU/Linux package (or a family of operating systems, as the article says). The amount of contortion required to ensure the article has enough for people simply searching 'Linux' (which could be anything from people using GNU/Linux, people hearing about Linux's market share bay way of being used in embedded devices, or wanting specific information about the kernel) without going into too much technical information about the kernel is astounding. It just about makes sense if you know the topic, but for someone looking for information on the term 'linux' and how it describes both a kernel and 'a family of operating systems' (GNU/Linux), it's confusing at best. Tomtiger11 (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually if you read it WP:PRECISION supports the current title: "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." The claim "Linux is the name of the kernel, GNU is the operating system." is WP:POV from Stallman and the FSF and is not widely supported outside that POV. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to debate in good faith, but I'm afraid your point doesn't stand to scrutiny. WP:PRECISION clearly says "...unambiguously define the topical scope of the article..." and I provided a good number of examples where the title of the topic and the scope of the article do not match. It's all very well quoting WP:COMMONNAME but covering topics applicable solely to the kernel in an article self-defined as talking about "a family of open source Unix-like operating systems" makes the title ambiguous - items referring to the kernel belong in Linux Kernel. Calling it GNU/Linux is indeed the position of the GNU Project and the FSF, but I do not know how you can claim that Linux being the kernel, and GNU being the operating system is a minority POV - it's the plain truth. The vast majority of the 'base packages' - packages that are common between most/all GNU/Linux distributions are managed/maintained by the GNU Project (Bash, coreutils), and it's even the (well referenced) term used on GNU. I don't think anybody is advocating for this to be merged with GNU, it's very clear that the work put into the Linux kernel is very important but just as GNU doesn't form an operating system on its own, neither does Linux. Tomtiger11 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Tomtiger11, Wikipedia is like the Hitch-Hiker's Guide. Where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong.
Here, we have a small number of geeks saying that calling the OS Linux is lazy and/or wrong. They are technically correct - the best kind of correct! - but it's irrelevant because the world has decided that Linux is the name of the OS as well.
We can't fix errors the real world has made, unfortunately. Guy (help!) 09:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
JzG, you make a good point, and I appreciate the way you put it. If my gripe was purely one of principle, I couldn't argue. The problem I, and I assume lots of other people who share my view, have is that for as long as this article is named 'Linux', is primarily about "a family of open source Unix-like operating systems", and yet has considerable content that only applies to the kernel, the article title will be somewhat ambiguous. There's a number of ways to solve that issue, namely leaving as is in the knowledge that it's a bit ambiguous. There's also removing the content that only applies to the kernel and not to either GNU/Linux distributions or non-GNU OSs like Android, or moving it to the Linux Kernel page. There's also (my preferred option) changing the article title to GNU/Linux (or something similar to note that the article is specifically discussing distributions of GNU/Linux - what I'd assume the lay man would be meaning when they say 'Linux'), noting in the article that there are also operating systems that aren't based on GNU and placing such content, along with the content applicable only to the kernel, to Linux Kernel. That way when someone searches 'Linux' they get sent to this page with an altered title, they see information relevant to the article scope, and if they were actually looking for information about the kernel there'll be the disambiguation links taking them to the relevant page.
I understand if my preferred option and views aren't universally shared but I think the article needs to be more on-topic. If any action is to be taken, changing the topic requires the least work and has the additional benefit of being 'more correct' as well as less ambiguous. It means that apart from moving a few blocks of text around, no significant editing is required. The other option of trying to rewrite the article so that it covers the 'family of operating systems' that are commonly called Linux, without also making it an article on the kernel, requires more work. The main preamble and history section could be rewritten to more accurately portray how the operating systems came about, with brief discussion of how GNU and Linux come together to form a whole functioning operating system, and then development/uses/et cetera - and moving anything purely about the kernel to Linux Kernel. Whilst not my preferred option, that could also work Tomtiger11 (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I am adding my "vote" (even though it is only informal here) to make this a 6-1 discussion in favor of changing the nomenclature to the appropriate "GNU/Linux". MOS:LINUX's Talk:Linux/Name consensus discussion and vote of this debate dates to a 2008 vote where the turnout was unfortunately the complete opposite of all the discussions on the page before the vote: everywhere I look before the vote people were supporting GNU/Linux and not Linux!!! The vote however was 8-0 in favor of just calling it Linux. I would like to add my vote in this discussion: GNU/Linux is the name of the (class of) operating system(s) which use the Linux kernel. Altanner1991 (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Altanner1991, that's because Wikipedia uses the words the real world uses, not the words the real world would use if the real world weren't so persistently Wrong about stuff. Guy (help!) 09:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
and, as has been done dozens of times before this quickly gets into WP:DEADHORSE territory, so time to wrap it up until the next time. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Overwhelming majority of WP:RS refer to Linux kernel with GNU as Linux. Activism to credit rms or FSF is not a valid argument here. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a few points that seem obvious and natural to me, without any need to point to [WP:thisorthat]. As seen above, they can be contradictory, and can be abused to defend a weak position.

(1) A somewhat common term used to refer to something should be the title, even if that use is technically wrong, provided it is unambiguous.

(2) If various people each encounter that term referring to different somethings, whether in new or old documents, each of those people can and should expect Wikipedia to have an article or articles which will faithfully explain all such meanings of the term within the contexts of each of those encounters, including the current and historical meanings. Ideally, either the definitions are all covered in one article, or the article should choose one meaning to define and link to the disambiguation page for the others. This one evolved into doing much of both, which is OK, but the first paragraph says it is intended to define only one usage of the term, and that doesn't match the title. I agree that this Article is broken in this regard, and that the title could easily solve all these problems as suggested above with "Linux (operating systems)". Given the strong resistance to this extremely simple suggestion (which I don't understand, in spite the rationalizations above), I also agree with many of the correct, but much more laborious solutions suggested above.

(3) Regardless of the title, if the common usage of the term is incorrect, like "Kleenex", the article defining such term should begin by noting the technical incorrectness, and address it in the body, and it should provide a technically correct, alternative term. The title can be "Kleenex"; we can't make people stop calling it a "Kleenex"; however, it is the ethical duty of the author to provide and even promote the more correct term such as "facial tissue". I don't understand the resistance to this. Just because a term is popularly used ambiguously and incorrectly doesn't mean we also must do so. Why do some in the Wikipedia community despise using the term GNU/Linux? It's the truth. It's correct. It's unambiguous. It's the accepted term of the relevant scientific communities. It reflects historical fact. What makes it such a dirty word?

(4) If the author(s) of an article wish to use the popular term throughout the article in place of a correct term simply due to familiarity, that's fine, as long as the article expressly states such continued use, and the term is not ambiguously used to mean anything else in the article. In this article, we could add "for the sake of simplicity, the term 'Linux kernel' is used to refer to the kernel originally developed by Linus Torvalds for the GNU OS, and the term "Linux" refers to GNU/Linux operating systems"; of course, the article would have to be religious about clarifying any other use of the term "Linux" in the article, and should not use that term when referring to systems that use a different kernel with the same GNU OS, or vice versa, etc. Otherwise, the article's definition of the term gets muddled and even becomes false. It's valid to argue that "Linux" should be used for the title and throughout the article instead of GNU/Linux because it is the commonly accepted and/or popular term for a family of OSes; just remember that ChromeOS, MAC OS, Android, Google Nest and smartwatches are NEITHER commonly accepted as nor popularly referred to as "Linux" operating systems. Oh, wait, but that is in contradiction with three of the first five paragraphs, which indicate "Linux" is not a family of operating systems, but any electronic device with Linux (the kernel) in it. Hmmm... So even within the article, the refusal to accept a more accurate term makes it impossible for the article to define "Linux".

(5) This article is "muddled" at best, and the first paragraph is false. It's impossible for one thing to be based on another which didn't exist. Linux the OS is NOT "based" on the Linux kernel. Rather, the kernel was based on the OS, initiated by Linus and completed by multiple authors to fit the "Linux" GNU OS, in place of GNU's kernel (and I think the extra comma erroneously indicates that the whole family of OSes was created by Linus Torvalds). The first sentence of this article exposes the author's bias against the facts (more activism?). Numerous articles and postings on the Web which I've seen paraphrase this article's heading, resulting in false statements that are then perpetuated throughout the Internet and the real world, claiming Linux was invented by Linus. Linus played a fractional but momentously pivotal role in the first complete "Linux" operating system and he deserves his props; the rest was GNU and FSF, made up of dozens or hundreds of other equally valuable people who produced the other 99.9% of "Linux", and it's unethical and contradictory to historical facts to obscure and bury those other contributions. The truth should be celebrated.

(6) The bias gets more offensive in the 2nd sentence with an incendiary, unsubstantiated opinion: it claims that the FSF is "causing" controversy, However, the citations provided do not indicate controversy; rather they provide some clarification and history of the term Linux. Who is this author that they should decide which is the cause and which is the effect? I would say The news media and journalists caused the "controversy". Maybe the author wasn't around in the industry when it happened. Any "controversy" existed before the FSF articles referenced by the author. The media misquoted, abbreviated and misapplied the term back in the 1990s, and that's what the public heard of course, and so it continues to be used that way today. For a more accurate, less political article, refer to the disambiguation at the top of this article.

(7) I'm not a "GNU GUY" or an "FSF Actvist" as some of the impertinent posts above (and one or more of the authors of this article) would have readers believe, simply because I know what's correct and what's false and want Wikipedia articles to be truthful, accurate, and reliable -- more informative, not less. I don't care much if people say Ubuntu is Linux -- I do it, too. Call it Kleenex for all I care. As a software developer and system administrator, I believe the content of any article about technical subjects must be able to convey the facts correctly. The title and first few hundred words of this article, the most important, don't do that.

(8) All of these problems seem to come back to one issue: GNU/Linux is a dirty word to many Wikipedians, a political football, but we don't know what else to call it. Coder Steve (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:THETRUTH. - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Pronounciation[edit]

I've only ever heard Americans pronounce "Linux" as /ˈlɪnɪks/. The pronunciation sample from Torvalds sounds like /linʊks/. Not a huge deal but if we're going to go out of our way to provide the pronunciation, it may as well be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7261:6AD0:7174:11D6:7981:178D (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Next time, just press the Edit button :-) -- Sloyment (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
SineBog, I think we Americans just have lazy-speech. ;-) I think I"m pronouncing it as /ˈlɪnʊks/, but it always sounds closer to /ˈlɪnɪks/. Coder Steve (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph indicates three different recordings, but all three of the references link to the same audio file.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Linus-linux.ogg Is there anything I can do to help? Coder Steve (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Raspberry pi[edit]

Please can you mention that the Raspberry Pi is associated with Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.26.182 (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It is already there at Linux#Education. Anything more need to be added? - Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Torvalds not "principal author of Linux kernel" as portrait pic caption states[edit]

Can't immediately find a cite, but I know that while Linus Torvalds wrote the original kernel, and was quite involved for awhile, my impression now is that it's almost entirely modified or new code from thousands or more of programmers, and that he's mostly just deciding what goes out and what goes into the kernel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.88.59.121 (talk)

That's cool that you have an impression, but until and unless you can find citations to back up your impression (and these will have to be really good, and probably several), it's not going to happen. You may find that you need to redefine the word "author" as well.--Jorm (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)