Talk:Linux/Archive 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

WTF Penguin?!?

Mac has a freakin' apple, at least that makes sense, but what does Linux have, a penguin just sitting there, waiting to become sober? 10/22/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by L1QU1D5N4KE (talkcontribs) 20:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For the answer to this question see Tux - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to such discussion. (talk)NeoStrider —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

j vm

.n. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. You were saying? You may want the article "jvm" (I love the simple questions). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What is a staging driver?

nouveau was accepted as a staging driver into Linux yesterday. What does that mean exactly? (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

See this. man with one red shoe 20:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

MINIX vs Minix

In some areas of the article it says MINIX and others Minix. It should be consistant. The question is, which should it be? Unknowntbeast (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In MINIX article is constantly used MINIX, we should do the same here. man with one red shoe 01:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree. I use the presumption that the editors of the other article have at least got that much correct; the spelling of whatever it is. Sometimes I'm wrong. Oh, well. Even if it is incorrect, it can still be presumed as the "Wikipedia standard" for spelling that item or term. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I made the change, even on the official site this is the used spelling: man with one red shoe 02:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Version numbers

I see Linux version numbers in the infobox, although the article states that it is not about the kernel. I think N/A would be much better.

All too often people claim having problems with Linux 8.10 or the like. We should not add to the confusion. The distributions have version numbers, the kernel has and the different programs have, but there is no authority giving numbers to the "Linux OS" this article claims to be about.

--LPfi (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While the article is not directly about the kernel, it's not like it's a separate and irrelevant issue. If you remove info about the Linux kernel in this article what does it remain? What will we describe in this page? This article is about the OS based on Linux kernel, that's what we talk about, thus the kernel version number is highly relevant. Oh, and by the way, hearsay and what mistakes people makes on the Interwabs is not relevant for an encyclopedia. man with one red shoe 14:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is not about the OS based on Linux kernel. It is about software development platform based Linux operating system. But the article is biased and irrelevant because the computer science books about operating system is against this article. Golftheman (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The kernel is certainly relevant for the article, yes. If the infobox said "latest version of the kernel" it would be relevant and correct (that is why I pointed it out here instead of removing the numbers). Now it reads more or less "This article is not about the kernel but about the OS. The latest release is 2.6.xx", which clearly suggests that it is the OS version numbers that are cited. Those who recognize the numbers as kernel version numbers are not mislead, but anyone new to Linux is.
And what mistakes people do is relevant for an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia should point out common misunderstandings and put its words so that they cannot be mistaken as supporting the misconceptions.
--LPfi (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
What about Tux then? This discussion was carried over and over again, it has decided to keep Tux and kernel version there because they are relevant, if you want you can change the text to make it clear. As for some mistakes that people make on forums is irrelevant, Wikipedia is about relevant source and encyclopedic information, the fact that you've seen a random person on a random page saying that they use Linux 8.10 is just as relevant as hearing your kid saying I don't know what idiocy and then rushing over to make it clear on Wikipedia that is not so. Remember, the key words are "reliable sources" that's what matters here. man with one red shoe 13:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The Tux is the official logo of the Linux operating system. GNU is a official logo for the GNU Project and it has nothing to do with the Linux operating system (aka monolithic kernel). If this article would be about reliable sources, the GNU information here would not state anything else than that GNU/Linux is propaganda and misinformatio what should not be used. But there is very strong emotions (and only such) about GNU/Linux so the technical fact about Linux can not exist on this article. So just by the current status, the Linux and Tux could be removed from this article because it would not make the article including more misinformation. And there is no pointing out the common misunderstanding about GNU/Linux = Linux. Yeah, that is about the GNU/Linux v. Linux but it will always be because the article itself is now biased and spreading misinformation and GNU propaganda and it will never be over until the computer science about operating systems gets changed so that GNU would really be part of the Linux when it comes about operating systems. Golftheman (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this could be solved as simply as changing the infobox where it says "Latest stable release: 2.6.28 (December 24, 2008)" to read "Latest stable release: Kernel 2.6.28 (December 24, 2008)". That should eliminate the confusion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
That would not make it better anyway. This article is just about Linux. It is a peace of software, not somekind mystical blackbox what can not be seen. If there would be technical people without biased viewpoint, all the GNU stuff would be removed from this article, actually the whole article would be removed and the Linux_kernel article would be renamed to this. The Linux release number is the only release number what has meaning for the OS. GNU has nothing to do with the Linux OS and that is so BIG misunderstanding in the whole article and the reason why the whole article should be removed. Golftheman (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
There is another problem with the version in the infobox OS template of this article and the Linux kernel, both indicate that the latest version is 2.6.2x, so we have to change both articles to update to the latest kernel version. We should only use one template, there is already one in this article Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Linux, but Linux kernel has another that is no in use in the article Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Linux_kernel. I think it is better if we use the one of Linux kernel because it is about the kernel, and in this article use the template to bring the information from Linux Kernel. So this would be like Ahunt said: Kernel 4.12.8 (16 August 2017; 1 day ago (2017-08-16)) [±][1]

. --KDesk (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu/Linux on Windows?

Hello fellow editors, I'm not 100% sure if this is real/possible, but here is are some screens of Ubuntu/Linux running on Windows:

Maybe if it is indeed true we should add some info about that in this page. I will leave it to an expert... Jerebin (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is legit, I just added that info. SF007 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible, it uses Colinux Kernel man with one red shoe 03:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you just dual-boot to Linux? --Technology is the future 17:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexSeibz (talkcontribs)

Not possible. The screenshot Ubuntu running on Windows is not about Linux operating system (= the kernel). It is a screenshot about Ubuntu distribution and more specific, a GNOME desktop environment themed by Canonical's own style, running in Windows. You can not see the Linux operating system (= the kernel) at that screenshot at all. And it is just more biased for Ubuntu promoting it as it would make it possible, while it is not. Golftheman (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Here, have a wikilink, it's on the house. We have an encyclopedia lying around here somewhere if you'd like to learn more. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Constant removal of Linux on Windows image

It seems two editors are very interested in removing an image of Linux/Ubuntu running on Windows without getting any consensus/opinion whatsoever first and claiming "there seems to be a consensus that this doesn't belong here" while there is not proof whatsoever that this is true. Please avoid removing that again without getting consensus, because from what an wikipedianist I know told me, consensus is one of the bases of the "wikipedia model" and the ones wanting to change the status quo are the ones that need to get consensus. Please try to be neutral (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) and not anti-windows. And also stop using weak arguments like "this is not a proper source" or "linux does not run on windows without Colinux", the information can be easily confirmed at the official website or other websites, like lifehacker, and the caption can be reworded to be accurate. Anyway, anyone has any good reasons not to keep this? I think that this is not only relevant, but VERY relevant. (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention explanations for removal like "nfcc", that mean nothing... (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for starting off this debate! I would like to say that I am opposed to including the CoLinux image, simply because this is an overview article and it cannot mention every application that can be run on Linux. I think it is fine to have the Cooperative Linux article, but that is where this image and caption belong, not in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly because it is an overview article is that I think it is relevant. This is not an application that runs on Linux, but a modified version of Linux Kernel that runs on Windows. Off course we can't list all types of machines that can run Linux, but we have an overview like "cellphones, supercomputers, etc...". I think this is quite relevant since it a bit different from what a Virtual Machine is, yet, it allows one OS to run alongside another... (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Not true. According to the CoLinux page, Windows and Linux are run in parallel like coroutines. From this it sounds like it is not running directly on Windows. Since it won't run on Windows without CoLinux, it doesn't actually run on Windows at all, but within a Windows app. So the connection is indirect and it should NOT be depicted here. Yworo (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You are arguing about words "It does not run on windows" vs "it runs in parallel to windows": this is not relevant, from a normal-user point of view people say that program "run on windows", even if they are not really running on the windows kernel or something like that... And of course it does not run without Colinux, just like the linux kernel by itself is useless and does not run on any hardware. That does not mean Linux is not related to the x86 architecture... Yes, it runs Windows inside a windows app, how else would it run? since we are talking about windows? Off course we could not just take the kernel and run it on windows like any other app. Anyway, I think this is relevant, and not "indirect", like you say...
You said that Linux kernel is useless alone and does not run on the hardware? That is just BS. The linux kernel is monolithic. It is the complete operating system. And no one use just the operating system for anything else than operating the hardware and controlling the software on the computer. It has no other purpose to exist. You can run linux kernel alone on pure hardware, without any other software because the linux kernel is the operating system. And technically the CoLinux is not running top of the NT (operating system in Windows) but side of it. Even that you can see it as a window in the Windows shell, it does not make it run top of it. It is like saying that using a terminal on plasma-desktop to connect to screen on remote server is saying that program running on shell is running on that computer and not in the server. Golftheman (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, what nfcc meant was that the image is non-free. An screenshot of Linux falls under the GNU GPL. However a screenshot of Windows is not free, it contains material copyright by Microsoft. By Wikipedia rules, such a non-free image can only appear on an article related to its copyright holder. The image could be put in the article on Windows, for example, but it can't be used here. The same issue arises with the images of book covers. They can't just be used anywhere, but only on an article about the book. Yworo (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, that is utterly untrue, we have fair-use you know? "such a non-free image can only appear on an article related to its copyright holder" <-- This is not true and the wikipedia policy says nothing about it:

No it's not. It's to protect Wikipedia and it's taken seriously. Go ahead and ask at Wikipedia:MCQ if you like. As for consensus, it's current 2 to 1 against in this discussion. In actuallity, the consensus against is much higher, as the image has been removed mutiple times by multiple editors with accounts since it was first added, for a number of different reasons, but primarily because of it's non-free status. Yworo (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me just point you to the article about utorrent: the image contains parts of the windows interface and it is still under fair-use. This is case is also clearly fair-use.

I was the one that uploaded that to use on the CoLinux article! I can't really give my opinion if the image should be in this article, since I don't know too much about the Linux kernel (still a bit of a Linux newbie!). I think that if it is in fact the Linux kernel alongside Windows it is a notable achievement. However, if it is just a program to "mimic Linux" (similar to wine), then I don't think it should be here. Also: please avoid edit-wars and respect Wikipedia:Consensus - SF007 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is de facto the Linux Kernel and not an app that "mimics linux".

85.x.x.x: Please don't intersperse comments. You should not break up other's comments, but always add your comments at the end. And all comments should be signed. You've made a mess of the discussion. The uTorrent article only shows the application window, it doesn't show the taskbar or other Windows specific content. There's a reason for that. Yworo (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

this wiki-language is a mess, sorry if I broke someth... And regarding the non-free image, we can easily crop the image to show only the app, or even make a new one. see? "non-free" problem solved! (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The screenshot does not belong in an article that does not mention the concept of running Linux on Windows. If it did mention it, we probably wouldn't need a screenshot to explain it, which means the screenshot would violate the "No free equivalent" rule at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy. Also, there is no need at all to use a screenshot that includes the non-free Firefox logo. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also there are other considerations, like undue weight. The market share of Linux running on Windows is practically nil, so including the image is giving undue emphasis to something hardly anyone does with Linux. You are welcome to show that I'm wrong by showing that running Linux on Windows using CoLinux has a substantial market share of the Linux market. Yworo (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
If we crop the image (or take a new screenshot) the image is considered "free" so that is not an issue. Just like the google chrome image. Not to mention that CoLinux is relevant, so relevant even LifeHacker talks about it. Not to mention that removing the image just due to licensing is a very weak argument (due to fair-use and the fact we can crop the image, etc...) (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of non-free content to crop out of the image. The leftovers wouldn't really be useful. File:Google Chrome.png's licensing information is inaccurate; the image includes a Windows titlebar. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The google chrome image is not cropped and yet is is accepted... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The Google Chrome screenshot being used on Google Chrome is acceptable, because that article is about Chrome and it is impossible to show (a released version of) Chrome without showing Windows. We certainly can and do show Linux without showing non-free software such as Windows or the Firefox logo. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly against including the image. None of us have been or are likely to be swayed by your arguments. And there are several other users who have not commented in this discussion who have removed the image giving one or another of these reasons for its removal. This is what I meant when I said the consensus was against it, I could tell from the number of different users who had removed it, compared to a single ip user edit warring to attempt to include it. Yworo (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Including you also "edit-warring"... And there were me and other user adding it, and two users (you and Fasach Nua) trying to remove it without gathering consensus first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not have to be gotten on the talk page. See Consensus as a result of the editing process. None of the editors except you violated the 3RR rule, which prohibits a single user from making more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. See the flowchart... The fact that you can't keep the image in the article indicates that those who oppose it outnumber those who support it. I think that's pretty simple math. Yworo (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think at this point we can say that there is no consensus to include this image, regadless of the non-free status of the image. I have yet to see anyone support including it, with the exception of User: (etc). - Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the image, after reading more about the topic, it seems CoLinux uses in fact the Linux kernel, so I think the image is appropriate. - SF007 (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A number of things about the removal of Image:Ubuntu on Windows - Firefox vs Firefox.png caused red flags for me.
The first removal by Fasach Nua I assumed was due to the removal of the {{Non-free image rationale}} templates from the image. [1] However, after further research and the second removal by Fasach Nua, I can no longer assume good faith. Fasach Nua has a clear bias against non-free content and has history of removing non-free images from articles for no reason other than they have a non-free template of some kind. This can be seen in their talk page history and contributions. The subsequent removals of this image by Yworo with edit summaries such as "there seems to be a consensus that this doesn't belong here; take to talk" when this has not been brought up on the talk page I found just as strange due to the fact that Yworo has been active on Wikipedia for less than two months [2] and mainly seems to make semi-automated edits to remove the phrases "it is important to note that" and "Ironically, the" from large numbers of articles.
As for the actual free vs non-free status of this image, it is actually rather complicated and this image is probably more free than non-free. Mozilla Firefox itself is free software but the Firefox logo is not free. However, since the Firefox logo is not the main subject of discussion it is considered to be de minimis and it does not make the image itself non-free. Firefox is also probably the best application to show as a side by side comparison of both versions running simultaneously on different operating systems on the same machine due to familiarity, availability, and the fact that it can display the operating system information in its About window. Screenshots of software running on Microsoft Windows are also not automatically considered to be non-free, although there are people who think that is the case. The Windows user interface and icons are not the main subject of discussion and are also considered de minimis (this particular issue has come up numerous times on Commons and it tends to divide editors).
As for whether or not this image should be present on Linux, I'd say it does belong. That said, if this image is to be considered non-free, there should be a few sentences that actually describe what it is that this image is showing vs it just being eye candy (it seems like there used to be, but they may have been edited out). If the image is considered free, then it can be included without any copyright issues, eye candy or not.
--Tothwolf (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please restrict your comments to the content being disputed. Editor's opinions or how they choose to edit are not relevant to the discussion. Yworo (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Quack, quack, WP:DUCK. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Why a Duck? Yworo (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: I am not a great "techie", but having Linux/Ubuntu running alongside Microsoft Windows without the problems of a traditional Virtual Machine seems a great/important achievement. Jerebin (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Omit - non-free image, undue weight. Yworo (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - not significant enough to be in the Linux article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


"(commonly pronounced /ˈlɪnʌks/, LI-nuks in English[4][5], also pronounced /ˈlɪnʊks/[6])"

Here in Canada, almost everyone I know pronounces it /ˈlɪnəks/ or /ˈlɪnɪks/. I think that /ˈlɪnʌks/ is a transcription error of somebody who confused /ə/ for /ʌ/. Amirite? -- (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Most likely, yes. They were probably thinking of the vowel they'd use if producing the word carefully (as in /fʌkɪŋ/, which would more often be pronounced closer to /fəkɪn/), except this is about the common pronunciation a proper name, so we should probably go with what people actually say, which should be the version with a schwa (personally, I never say /ˈlɪnʊks/ in English). -- (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No objection to auto-archiving. From a "rough feel" of where the conversations tail off, and my own personal preference as to how much remains, I recommend 120 days. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
So long? I'll configure it to keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've no doubt compromise can be reached.  :-) —Aladdin Sane (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I've set it up with 60 days and ten threads. The bots should start in the next 24h.--Oneiros (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Fixed after User:Thumperward changed the parameters.--Oneiros (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── up until now I've been manually archiving the talk here: I've avoided this article because I became fed up of being harrassed by editors both on- and off-wiki for ideological reasons, but I pop in now and then. I've re-adjusted the parameters of the archiving to match those of the existing archives. If there's any further discussion on this then please consider pinging me before, y'know, picking an entirely new archiving strategy on 24 hours' notice. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

External links

User:TurboForce added a hidden comment to the External links section with the edit summary: "Commented "There are no external links for Linux newbies". It seems that if you add one, somebody somewhere is offended and removes it! Not everyone reading the article is a Linux expert." I removed his comment and suggested that here on the talk page is a better place to get this fixed. I do think he has a point, however and so I have started this conversation.

In the past many external links have been added and removed, mostly because they were spam attempts to draw traffic to someone's website and weren't all that useful to beginners anyway. The Policy at WP:ELYES does allow external links (other than directly associated with the subject like the article subject's company website) as it details: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." I believe this does give us the latitude to include some "other reading" links that will help Linux beginners expand their knowledge beyond what this article currently has for text.

Two links that come to mind as candidates are Why Linux is Better which is a good primer, written by Manu Cornet, for people who have no knowledge of Linux and Linux Today which is a news feed of Linux articles updated daily. I would like to hear any objections to including these two. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a Wikipedia editor who has a big tattoo stamped across their forehead, "Linux fanboy", I do lean toward inclusion, and think that TurboForce has a point here. As a Wikipedia editor I note the goal here is "knowledge and education". Since the article is aimed at the reader who has "little or no knowledge of the subject", including links where more knowledge of the subject is found seems an admirable goal.

I do judge, as an editor, that EL's do not need to be included when the target web site is already being used in the references section. Providing one link to the source of the information is probably enough. Providing the link again in the EL section seems to me to be a type of WP:OVERLINK, and I'm dismayed by redundancy. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad Linux is more "beginner friendly" today than it used to be. Any Wikipedia article must assume that some readers have little or no knowledge about the subject. Any Linux expert who's reading these words, I must say this: assume that the everyday end-user of Linux has no previous experience of using it. Think about it from a total beginner's point of view.

An external link for newbies of Linux is definitely overdue. Cheers. TurboForce (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay that looks like we have a consensus to proceed at this point. I have added the two links I proposed above. I would also recommend that new links be proposed here first for agreement, to avoid a storm of reverts. - Ahunt (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Too soon to decide that "we have a consensus", this discussion took place only couple of hours ago, wait for other reactions. My first comment is that this seems hardly NPOV adding a "whylinuxisbetter" link, I will remove it for now. man with one red shoe 03:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
"Why Linux is better" is an unbridled advocacy site - just look at the text at this subpage for an illustration. Linux Today is a news site, pure and simple. I don't think either link fulfils the need for a NPOV beginners-quality introduction to what Linux is. Other candidates? --Alvestrand (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually I would say that particular page is factually accurate. While pro-Linux, this website is actually balanced and provides situations when a user shouldn't move to Linux like this page, which says "So if you spend a lot of time playing recent games, you should stick to Windows." I would like to re-propose this website for inclusion as one of the better ones for total beginners to Linux - it is factually accurate, available in many languages, balanced and written in non-technical language suitable for beginners, a rarity amongst Linux documentation. - Ahunt (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem, we have some discussion and engagement on this issue, so let's see what can be found for useful links for beginners. I think you will find that most beginners-type information is of an advocacy nature, as writers who are familiar with Linux are generally users of it. How about:
- Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay after five days without any disagreement I will add these links. - Ahunt (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ahunt. I wanted to send you a message to say "thank you" for adding them links, but not sure if you can send messages on here any more (or is it because can't I find the right link or button to send a message lol). I appreciate this Linux article is now helping newbies. Hopefully, Linux itself will continue to be more "beginner friendly" and computer manufacturers will offer users a choice of Linux when buying a new computer. On some models they do, but the vast majority don't. Linux for beginners - especially those without good computer knowledge - is an interesting point of discussion I think. Apologies for any grammar errors or too much wording, I'm always typing!! TurboForce (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That is no problem to add here, I appreciate your feedback. You were the one who identified the deficiency in the external links for readers new to Linux in this article, so you are the best person to look at the changes made and assess whether we have met that goal or not. - Ahunt (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC) (typed on Ubuntu 9.04)
I'm very impressed and with continued work, Wikipedia articles like this one will continue getting better for all readers - from beginners to experts. I spend hours of my spare time improving Wikipedia articles if I can. Thank you for reading this. Let's hope the Linux experts can start thinking about the newbies, especially those with no previous experience of using Linux (I'm trying not to break the rules here, as this discussion page is not about Linux itself, but about improving the article). - Typed on Ubuntu 9.10 (64-bit). TurboForce (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I strongly disagree with the re-addition of external links here. This is not an advocacy site and it is not our mandate to "teach newbies" anything. External links should be reliable and reputable, and preferably should not consist of personal essays nor user-generated content. People would be far better served by looking up reliable secondary sources written from the perspective of teaching the basics of Linux and using them to improve the actual article content, which after nearly ten years still does a very poor job of actually describing its subject matter (primary because of the tendency for editors to use it to proselytise). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This issue was raised on 4 January and pretty much concluded with a consensus a week ago, but if you want to reopen the debate that is fine. Let's see if there are any other objections at this point in time. I should point out that the links included fully comply with WP:EL, which says (among other things): "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Ahunt. It was me who complained about the lack of external links for newbies, thankfully this has now been addressed. Is it possible to write a Wikipedia article that's easy for newbies to understand and - at the same time - satisfies the experts? I'm trying to achieve that goal and I've spent a long time editing pages on this site, many of which I edited before creating my username "TurboForce". I'm not an expert at Linux, so I will not edit the article too much, unless I see areas that can be explained more clearly to newbies using better wording.
Very quickly: plain English about technical things... When a doctor prescribes medication, it will include a leaflet that clearly explains what the medication does, its known side effects and so on. This leaflet has to be written in an easy to understand manner without confusing the patient with excessive jargon. Have you heard of the Plain English Campaign? I have lots of work to do on Wikipedia. :) By the way, can you send users messages on here? I'm sure you could at one time, can you still send messages? TurboForce (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
If "minimal, meritable and directly relevant" were the only criteria upon which ELs were judged then we wouldn't having this conversation. DistroWatch is a news site which doesn't offer any unique content over and above that which this article would contain at FA status. One of the other links is a tutorial hosted on Knol, which fails both in that it's prescriptive and that it's user-generated. One of the others is a post on a blog. I'm still not seeing any compelling case for including any of those links rather than simply improving the article so that they aren't needed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
If you can incorporate that sort of information that people new to Linux need to understand the topic into the article, so that the external links aren't needed then I would be in favour of removing them. As you can tell by the comments above this article is closer to a programmer's level of article than a proper encyclopedia article that a member of the pubic, without a priori knowledge, could read and find useful information in. So I agree fixing the article would eliminate the need for the links and in a way the links do point out the shortcomings of the article as outlined above by User:TurboForce - Ahunt (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion adding external links to articles to mitigate their shortcomings tends to have a detrimental effect on their future growth, as new editors look at the page's problems and think "oh, it's okay, the external links take care of that". I'd love for this article to be overhauled to address that, but it requires people to get involved. For various reasons (primarily the problem of social factions) our free software articles are seldom really worked at these days. Any suggestions on how to improve that are welcome. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that these "external links" will become a place to spam the article with links, we also need to mind WP:EL which lists in the What should be linked: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material", I think that a site that has as URL "whylinuxisbetter" fails the neutrality test no matter what it contains, also the blogish links should be removed. man with one red shoe 22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we forgetting the purpose of Wikipedia? Someone who's heard about "Linux" and wonders what on Earth it is, will likely turn to the Linux article on Wikipedia. Reading just the first few paragraphs of the Linux article, the reader is likely to get the impression that Linux is a highly technical computer 'term' or 'product' and for use by programmers and computer experts only. Please consider what I mentioned earlier about plain English and the example of the little leaflet that comes in medication packets, which illustrates how experts can make newbies understand technical things/terms easier. External links for newbies ARE required. Why make the article too long, when you can explain the basics and provide the reader with links for further reading? If the Linux experts don't like the Linux article being too simple, why not create a separate Linux page for experts only? Enough said, I don't want to cause any more squabbling in here, please improve the article for newbies. Thanks. TurboForce (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It is possible to make technical articles accessible without having to punt to the external links section. Telling people to go elsewhere for a simple overview is lazy. Why not suggest parts of the article which you think are too technical right now and we'll see if they can be rewritten? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)