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:

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)

Move to GNU/Linux[edit]

The most common family of operating systems is GNU/Linux. Android is another family. Other families are based on µlibc and other operating system runtimes. Because of this, this page should be moved to GNU/Linux because it talks about the operating system based on the GNU runtime system and runtime libraries: Glibc, GOMP, GNU binutils, GNU Coreutils. I advocate for a dedicated page for each of the operating systems which have Linux as their kernel, as already has Android. Then, move the page Linux Kernel to Linux. The other less known OSes using a different combination of runtime + Linux could be put into a section inside the new Linux article. Filiprino (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You pushed and pushed and pushed this agenda last month despite attempts by many editors to explain there is an existing consensus based on WP:COMMONNAME. In the closing, you were cautioned to respect the consensus and stop your uncivil WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Nothing has changed, not even your behavior. Please give it a rest. Msnicki (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not see any consensus. If there was consensus, then the article would not be debated continously. On top of that, I do not only talk about the name, but about the contents. Additionaly, some of you were told to stop following my user page, because some of you were abusing me. Filiprino (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Seriously WP:DEADHORSE, drop the stick. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Indef under WP:NOTHERE. There are just no other edits here, other than this unsupported soapboxing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I am a spanish Wikipedia editor. And I have contributed to the GNU/Linux article on there. I am just armonizing contents among different languages to stop this Linux, GNU/Linux, musl/Linux, µlibc/Linux, etc are the same but Android no bullshit. Because facts are facts and writing about controversies and ignoring contributions from different parties is not nice. Filiprino (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

GNU/Linux at Unix article[edit]

GNU/Linux has come up again at the Unix article. I hope it is appropriate to discuss here even though it's at a different article, I figured the editors watching this page would be the most aware. Caco13 first did a global replace of Linux with GNU/Linux, which I reverted, and Abhilash Mhaisne reverted me. Now Abhilash has taken up the argument on my user page. From a quick look here I can see it comes up often and has already been hashed out (at least with no consensus for a change). I would appreciate it if I could pass this off to interested parties here as it's not a dispute I really wish to take up. Proponents of the change may find less resistance at a different article than if they tried to do it here. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Old references in Market share and uptake[edit]

Specifically in section titled "Market share and uptake" and subsection "Web Servers" there is a reference using "W3Cooks". The citation referring to "W3Cooks" does not direct to a relevant reference any more. An quick web search does not find any decent equivalent reference. Suggest that this statement be removed or updated with a reference to a cache of the page at the retrieval date. Siphayne (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this, Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)