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.

Ambiguity/Misunderstanding about Nokia X[edit]

See Smart Devices

"the Nokia X is Microsoft's first product which uses the Linux kernel."

As far as I know, Nokia X was developed and marketed by Nokia when its acquisition by Microsoft was not yet closed. The sources cited there also don't say that Nokia X was Microsoft's move. This news article declares the acquisition date as 25th April 2014. Nokia X was launched on 24th February 2014. GunjanPB (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Good point, this edit removed the unnecessary information. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Sidebar confusing[edit]

I'm OK with this article not being mainly about the kernel, but the sidebar is very confused about whether to be about the kernel or the "whole thing". I think the side bar should go, or be radically changed, at the very least loosing version numbers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientus (talkcontribs) 00:07, 5 March 5 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Yeah, that makes sense as there's no "version" of Linux, and including Linux kernel versions just introduces confusion. Got the infobox (that's how it's called) modified, but there's no need for any other changes to it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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]

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)

  • 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)

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 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)

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)

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)