Talk:Linux

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

Linux Text-to-speech (TTS)[edit]

See here: https://lwn.net/Articles/655914/

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 (talkcontribs)

Kernel or OS?[edit]

Linux is NOT a OS, it's a Kernel. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3403938/whats-the-relationship-between-a-linux-os-and-a-kernel Fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y.P.Y (talkcontribs) 11:12, 20 March 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 82.68.58.113 (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)

Some wikipedias have separated articles for Linux kernel, Linux system and GNU/Linux system, such as Portuguese pt:Linux (núcleo), pt:Linux, pt:GNU/Linux; Japanese jp:Linuxカーネル, jp:Linux, jp:GNU/Linuxシステム, and Hebrew he:לינוקס_(ליבה), he:לינוקס,he:גנו/לינוקס.--Luizdl Talk 05:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that Linux is *not* an operating system, at least it's used to refer to a family of operating systems with that kernel. It's different. Talk:Linux kernel#Linux is a kernel and a so called operating system family but it's NOT an operating system --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
To avoid having the same discussion in multiple locations, I've responded to your comment here. - Aoidh (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Linux as an operating system and as a kernel[edit]

I think it would be helpful to make less confusing the reason why Android is not a Linux operating system and how GNU/Linux is a relevant alternative name for Linux as an operating system, omitting the "controversy" part (does not belong in the lead paragraph). I propose to change the following

The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to describe the operating system, which has led to some controversy;[1][2] while they explicitly have no controversy over the name Android (they object to it on proprietary grounds however), as GNU is not a part of it.

into

Linux distributions making extensive use of the GNU system are sometimes called a GNU/Linux operating system,[3] a practice that is advocated by the Free Software Foundation.[2] Although not a Linux operating system, Android is based on the Linux kernel.

The important part here is to mention the reason for calling a Linux operating system "GNU/Linux" is not only that FSF likes it, it is also the extensive use of the GNU system. The way the GNU/Linux - Android situation is presented is mostly political, while it can and should be mostly factual. Nxavar (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposed change, it makes the FSF point of view look like it is not the minority POV that it is. - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Who says that Android is not a Linux operating system ? If an operating system uses a Linux kernel it is indeed a Linux operating system. It is not the Linux Operating System, if such exists, but certainly one of them. While Google may not like the statement that Android is a Linux operating system for marketing reasons, they have no say over the matter of perception and description by independent and neutral parties. In any case, the grammar and construction of the existing statement is horrible, it should be changed. The phrase "they explicitly have no controversy over the name..." is just unacceptable, a controversy is not something someone has, but a conflict between multiple parties over some subject matter. Kbrose (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the Android issue, I think that the stance of Wikipedia on characterizing an OS as a Linux OS, is to follow what the vast majority call/characterize an OS, both in the business and consumer side. Since Android is widely not called a Linux operating system, I do not see how it is consistent to call it one. Let's not forget that Linux is technically just a kernel, and of the microkernel flavor. If people do not consider its place in Android to not be so prominent, Why should Wikipedia promote this view? Nxavar (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
It is not a matter of promotion. If a chair is painted blue, it is a blue chair. If a city has a Greek community, they call it Greek town. The statement that an operating system is Linux-based, is equivalent to saying that it is a Linux operating system. Even the Linux foundation describes Android as a LInux distribution. If it is Linux distribution, why would it not be also a Linux operating system? On WP, Android is also categorized as a category:Embedded Linux distributions. Kbrose (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
See, Android is a Linux-based operating system. What it isn't is a GNU/Linux based operating system. So what we need to decide is whether "The Linux OS" refers to GNU/Linux based OSs (this is what it usually refers to) or any Linux based OS (now including Android, Chrome OS, etc.)
This is why I personally prefer the term GNU/Linux; it makes one's meaning clearer. Eman235/talk 00:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Whoa, hold on a second. Linux is not a microkernel. Konimex (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ "GNU/Linux FAQ". Gnu.org. Retrieved September 1, 2013. 
  2. ^ a b "Linux and the GNU System". Gnu.org. Retrieved September 1, 2013. 
  3. ^ "About Debian". 

Uptime?[edit]

If Linux is more reliable as competing operating systems, some uptime FUN FACTS will be nice ( not serious, of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.160.175.66 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC) gentoo (fileserver, 2.6.17 x86_64 kernel) : 1739 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.215.2 (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)