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.
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.
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.
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.
update references for adoption to match recent events
talk more about international usage
finish translating missing content from French page: servers, embedded devices, and security
talk about X and possibly TeX in the history section
add better references
reference for all the different pronunciations
expand comparisons section, mention device drivers here
move the remaining stuff near the end about uptake/adoption/migration/usage to Linux adoption and summarize in History
improve the criticism section. Criticism of Linux has mysteriously disappeared over time. (Compare the current article to the "article milestones" listed on this page. Also see the revision history of Criticism of Linux.)
Verify the "Copyright and naming" section states "A 2001 study of Red Hat Linux 7.1" and I am pretty sure were only at Red Hat 5 to date. Confirmed. BTW, we are at Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 5.4, today. RHEL and Red Hat Linux are different. --W4otn (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I wander, does this "suckyness" also apply to Android? I admit, I just haven't checked.. and while TTS is only an "application" (or the reverse, speech-to-text), I assumed it was fairly good now in Android, but that would be proprietary Google Now (and Siri, Cortana for others). E.g. are these technologies good in Android, but only in a proprietary form, but what about those included in free software AOSP, that may or may not still be used. And if they are good (or not..), can they be used in "regular" Linux? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comp.arch (talk • contribs)
Yes, we should. That was then, this is now. The distinction between GNU the operating system and Linux the kernel is becoming more widely understood. Whatever risk there might once have been of "confusing" readers by using accurate terminology has evaporated. As Benjamin Mako Hill pointed out, 'the term Linux for the operating systems is, in one very important sense, very confusing in that it confuses the kernel and OS. Calling [it] "GNU/Linux" ... would go a long way to clearing this up. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Our job is to inform and choose the most accurate names -- not regurgitate confusing and accurate public misconceptions.' zazpot (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
And WP:COMMONNAME still applies as well. GNU/Linux remains an obscure term promoted by only one group of people and is not the name commonly used in the mainstream or tech press. - Ahunt (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe it is unnecessary to name the operating system as anything but Linux. BUT the term "GNU/Linux distribution" is required when referring to a package that includes for instance the Office Libre system, Firefox, and the gcc compiler package. There is, I believe, a distinct philosophical difference between Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman, although I greatly admire both. DaveyHume (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
You can note that, as per MOS:LINUX, we don't use the term "GNU/Linux" on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't we at least bold the mention of the alternative name GNU/Linux in the lead, instead of italicizing it? I completely agree that Linux is preferable to GNU/Linux, as it's more recognizable, but my understanding is that synonyms should be in bold typeface the first time they are mentioned in an article on Wikipedia. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 06:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
That is not the case on Wikipedia. You should read the rest of this talk page including all the archives, to get the history, as well as Talk:Linux/Name. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree. But most people refer to any operating system built on the linux kernel as "linux". Rather than GNU/Linux or FreeBSD/Linux. (the latter is a possible but very rare configuration. GNU/FreeBSD is much more common and sense-makeish.) It's a misnomer in my opinion but wikipedia has this policy of using the name most people use. I find more technical sources use GNU/Linux a lot more frequently. Like ibm. And Linux.org uses it a lot too, which may seem funny. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the people.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
When people say that they're going to "get some chips", they might also buy a fish, pie or sauce. It doesn't mean the whole meal is called "chips", just because people refer to it that way in the short hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The ones that don't use GNU are things like Android, which I personally don't even consider to be linux. It's silly. Like calling Macintosh "FreeBSD". You know because Darwin is mostly FreeBSD. People want to treat linux as a brand like they do apple or windows, like an iphone or windows phone, even if both have a completely different kernel and userland. But it's not a brand. Well, it's a registered trademark and a company of sorts, but the company doesn't have any control over the stuff its kernel is put into. As for server and desktop linux, that can be considered an operating system, but it's not an operating system unless you include the gnu userland. Anyway, still. Most people have never even heard of GNU, so it makes sense to call this page Linux. No matter how inaccurate. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Personally though I think stuff about supercomputers and android and whatnot should go on linux kernel in the part about its applications. This article should be about linux servers and desktops. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an historical encyclopedic bug. Does not matter if Linux developers officially release Linux at kernel.org «The Linux Kernel Archives» written in font-size 48px. Does not matter if Linux is not a collection of programs, and if Wikipedia is not a democracy. It matters that people, companies and medias talk about "the Linux operating system". --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
And for the records, there is a lot of space between "Linux is a operating system" and "GNU/Linux is an operating system". E.g. Wikipedia users want to avoid GNU/? No problem, but why they don't consider "Linux is a kernel for unix-like operating systems"? That is the real question. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Beside the "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux" thing (summed up in the MOS:LINUX guideline), our longstanding consensus is that "Linux" is the operating system, while "Linux kernel" is the operating system kernel. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)