Jump to content

Talk:Linux/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

GNU history

Why was the last change reverted? This is an article on Linux, not GNU. The entire first paragraph of the history of Linux is just about GNU, it shouldn't be in there. Even the first picture of a person in the article is of RMS, not Linus, the creator of Linux. Linus wasn't and hasn't ever been part of the GNU project, so it makes no sense to include the history of it, let alone an entire paragraph detailing before the actual history of Linux. You might add a sentence later in the history adding he used GNU tools with Linux to make it complete, but not devote a history section to the history of GNU. Nathan J. Yoder 01:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Despite the name of the article, the operating system, if required to be named a single thing, would be more appropriately called "GNU". It more than likely would never have existed without GNU. Stallman came before Torvalds, and history should be chronological. ¦ Reisio 05:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Hell, why stop there. Why not call it GNU/BSD/X/MIT/Qt/Artistic/Linux. Come to think of it, there's still a few necessary things, so how about GNU/BSD/X/MIT/Qt/Artistic/Earth/Wind/Fire/Food/Sleep/RMS's Momma/Electricity/Running Water/Automobile/Internet/Democracy/Linux. Or does credit for its existence only start and end at GNU for convenient glory-hogging reasons? It just occurred to me, I should write some little programs that get included in all Linux distributions so that I too can start claiming that the modern computing world would not exist without me and we can start calling the operating system GNU/BSD/X/MIT/Qt/Artistic/Earth/Wind/Fire/Food/Sleep/RMS's Momma/Electricity/Running Water/Automobile/Internet/Democracy/Tommstein/Linux. There's a lot of things that Linux wouldn't exist without, although I'm not sure that the GNU Project is one of them. GNU ain't special.Tommstein 08:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Sure, you can call it GNU/X11/Linux. Fact is, the *principal developer* of GNU/Linux is GNU, and leaving out GNU in the name, but including Linux - a much less important contribution than GNU - just doesn't make sense. GNU started this operating system. GNU is bigger. GNU was there years before Linux. Geronimooo 19:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. Calling it otherwise is misleading to say the least. jbc 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tommstein. Lets also include a history of the semiconductor, Linus' family heritage and a history of Minix. That said, the only real thing that was "necessary" was the compiler, in order to actually compile Linux, but it's not like there weren't other non-free compilers he couldn't have used at the time either (I'm not even sure that was the only OSS compiler either--TenDRA dates back to 1990). THere was also a myriad of OSS BSD utilities he could have used at the time to include as part of the OS.
Now, all of THAT said, whether or not Linux would have existed without GNU is speculation, the exact kind which Wikipedia is not allowed to engage in. Nathan J. Yoder 11:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
"Linux is the system" and "Linux is what Linus Torvalds made" are mutually exclusive. It seems to me that your misunderstanding comes from failing to acknoledge that fact. For the history of "Linux" (a kernel) GNU is pretty relevant anyway, but for the history of GNU/Linux (the system) it is beyond reasonable doubt. jbc 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Yoder. This is a page about Linux. Stallman's picture and all the GNU manifesto talk belong in a separate GNU wiki page. The first paragraph is a subversive attempt to fan the GNU/Linux flamebait war. This debate was settled years ago when Linus said it is called Linux. I vote that the entire first paragraph should be deleted. Spectrogram 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
This debate was settled years ago when Linus said it is called Linux.
On the contrary, that is obviously one of the main reasons why the debate is still raging. If Linus would agree to call the operating system (based primarily on the Linux kernel and a bunch of stuff from the GNU project) GNU/Linux, this issue would likely be much less contoversial and more people would agree that GNU/Linux is an appropriate name. — Daniel Brockman 08:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
If this is a page about "Linux", why does it talk beyond the kernel? If it is a page about GNU/Linux, why would you remove its history? Also, "because Linus said so" is, of course, not an argument. jbc 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You guys can agree all you want, the info is staying and the article name will not change (something I don't really care for, actually, but rules are rules). That's just the way it is. ¦ Reisio 01:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Is It Me?

Is it me, or is the text a bit hard to understand? There are more than a few grammatical errors that prevent people from getting the complete meaning of the sentences. Somebody please fix that, since the quality of the information presented is as important as the quantity and validity.

I'll see what I can do when I have some time (probably later today or so).Tommstein 21:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Point it out or fix it yourself, this is a wiki - it's a team sport. ¦ Reisio 01:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
"Point it out or fix it yourself", yes he pointed it out, your point? --161.76.99.106 13:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The point is that he should be bold and make the edits himself rather than post it on here. That is the wiki-way. -Localzuk (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

the name "Linux" and Stallman's picture.

According to Linus's autiobio, Just For Fun, Linus did think up the name Linux as a working title, but planned to call the "release" version "Freax". Of course, Ari Lemmke told him what a godawful name Freax is, and recommended he stick with Linux.

Also, should we have rms's picture above linus's? The article is about with Linus did, after all. --Taejo | Talk]] 14:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is about Linux-based operating systems, and is not specific to the Linux kernel (what Linus did). The history section is organized chronologically, which seems like the most neutral and reasonable way to do it. Regarding the naming, a closer look at the different accounts may be in order. —Steven G. Johnson 17:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
What Steven said. ¦ Reisio 18:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Naming of "Linux"

Above, Taejo suggested that Linus' book, Just for Fun, has an account of the "Linux" naming that conflicts with the one in Wikipedia. I don't have the book, but the relevant passages seems to be partly quoted here:

Honest I didn't want to ever release it under the name Linux because it was too egotistical. What was the name I reserved for any eventual release? Freax. (Get it? Freaks with the requisite X.) In fact, some of the early make files—the files that describe how to compile the sources—included the word "Freax" for about half a year. But it really didn't matter. At that point I didn't need a name for it because I wasn't releasing it to anybody.
And Ari Lemke, who insured that it made its way to the ftp site, hated the name Freax. He preferred the other working name I admit that I didn't put up much of a fight. But it was his doing. So I can honestly say I wasn't egotistical, or half-honestly say I wasn't egotistical. But I thought okay, that's a good name, and I can always blame somebody else for it, which I'm doing now.
Linus Torvalds, Just for Fun, pp. 84 and 88

Although it would be nice to see the paragraph before the first one above, it sounds like Taejo is right and that "Linux" was one of Linus' working titles (although not his preferred one), and that Lemmke was the one who made the final choice rather than being responsible for coinage per se.

If anyone has the book, can you check if it says anything more about the name "Linux"?

(Also, is the "Lemke" (mis)spelling in the original book? "Lemmke" seem correct [1].)

Can anyone find a first-hand account by Lemmke himself? I'm sure he could add additional details, and it would also be good to confirm Linus' memory of events since it somewhat conflicts with the common story (urban legend?) repeated numerous places online. (I suppose one could email him for confirmation, but that verges on original research. It would be better if he could be persuaded to post a first-hand account somewhere, e.g. the Linux kernel mailing list, that we could link to.)

—Steven G. Johnson 17:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Asteroid

Asteroid 9885 Linux named after the computer operating system, has been added to this page. I don't know if this is verified. The arsteroid with that number is named Linux, however I do cannot confirm that it was named after the OS.—Gaff ταλκ 18:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

See Meanings of asteroid names (9501-10000), 9793 Torvalds named after Linus Torvalds, 9965 GNU named after GNU, 9885 Linux named after Linux. — Yaohua2000 19:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Documentation

If GNU-Linux is going to make any serious inroads in the BDU market (BDU=brain dead user) which Microsoft dominates faute de mieux, there has to be documentation which the average BDU like me can understand. In the distros about which I have had personal experience (Red Hat 8 -- before RH abandoned the BDUs -- and Debian 'sarge') such documentation seems to be an afterthought.

For example, Debian makes much of the fact that their 'sarge' distribution now has an installer application. However, their installation guide breaks virtually every recommended practice for writing technical manuals for non-technical people.

Most documentation reads like text books for computer science majors. The 'sarge' installation guide starts out with long-winded explanations about Debian, the Social Contract, Free Software Guidelines, etc. This information is of no interest to the BDU who -- faced with the task of installation -- wants to know only how to install Debian and what to in any conceivable situation where the installation may go wrong. Even when the guide gets around to doing so, there is still too much information -- badly presented for the most part -- which is not relevant to the immediate task, and -- in my experience -- not enough essential trouble-shooting information.

The problem is that the lead manual writers are the software developers, rather than potential users not familiar with the ins-and-outs of the software. Indeed, for the lead writers to have such familiarity is a positive disadvantage: they need to think like BDUs, not developers.

On page 47 of Martin Krafft's book there is a diagram of the Debian organization. While the word documentation is mentioned once in the diagram, the text which the diagram illustrates -- 2.4.1 from pages 46 to 50 -- makes no reference to documentation; it is all about perfecting the software.

There are basically two audiences for GNU/Linux documentation: developers and BDUs. The developers can write the text books, the documentation intended for the developer audience.

If however the people involved in the Debian project are serious about having BDUs use GNU/Linux on their desktops, then the project needs effective editors to serve the BDU audience who must have a status in the organization equal to that of the developers.

Effective BDU documentation will require a approval process parallel to but separate from the development approval process. No package to be used by BDUs should reach the testing and stable versions of each Debian release until approved by both the developers *and* the editors. Each should have a veto over the other.

Good developers do not make good editors, and vice-versa. Good editors will not be attracted to the project if they must meet the developer requirements listed on pages 63-64 of Mr. Krafft's book. There needs to be a separate set of requirements for editors, at very least for the documentation destined for BDUs.

Once this organization is in place, I would envisage the following process for BDU documentation. First, developers would still write the text books, although even for these good editors are essential. It would be the responsibility of editors to extract from the text books what is essential for BDUs and draft manuals and guides from it. At this stage the consultation between developers and editors would be close, because the former would have to help the latter understand what they meant -- as opposed to what they said -- in their text books.

The editors would then test the draft BDU documentation on actual BDUs. Only after this testing would this documentation be ready for editorial approval.

To conclude, the real question Linux developers should ask themselves is whether they are serious about increasing the market share of Linux on desktops beyond the 3% or so it now has. If so, there must be a fundamental change in how the BDU documentation is created, tested, and distributed. This issue is in my opinion of sufficient importance to be included in any article in the Wikipedia on GNU/Linux.

From swimmerken, 2005-11-27

No Windows or Mac OS on introduction

Greetings !

I'm removing 'Windows' and 'Mac OS' from the introduction because I strongly object that they make part of the 'Linux definition'. Linux shouldn't be defined in terms of a comparison of itself and specific proprietary operating systems. It cannot live on their shadow forever. Feel free to discuss this a little more here. --Hdante 13:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting. This is a [WP:NPOV|POV] edit. Comparison to specific proprietary operating systems was perfectly valid in the context. We're not here to further Linux or the Open Source cause, just to represent their actions. --Barberio 15:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, this was not supposed to be a POV edit. Instead, this was supposed to be considered an incorrect context. The sentence should be moved further down in the main article text, so as not to stay in its introduction. That's it. --Hdante 18:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Linux's distinction from proprietary operating systems is a major aspect, and worthy of being in the summary. Your edit seemed to be just removing mention of these alternative operating systems. The sentence can stay where it is. --Barberio 18:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh, his edit didn't eliminate mention of alternative proprietary operating systems, it just removed the singling out of a couple specific ones.Tommstein 18:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Um, yes, a couple of specific ones that happen to be, by far, the most common proprietary operating systems that a reader is likely to be familiar with, and therefore the easiest examples with which to illustrate the concept. —Steven G. Johnson
Wow, great response to something no one but you was talking about.Tommstein 07:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Whatever you wish. But I think you didn't understand what I said. I'm going to make it clearer:
  • I'm concerned with the introduction being a reserved place for a definition of Linux (or whatever).
  • I think it's ok for Linux to be defined as 'something that is not proprietary software'.
  • I don't think it's ok for Linux to be defined as 'something that is not Windows or Mac'. I think defining Linux as something that is not Windows or Mac is not NPOV. Although a correct logical definition, it implies a sense of comparison that can suggest that the text following it will try to focus on such argument.
  • If a comparison with Windows and Mac is good for the quality of the text, it should be put in it's proper place. A specific section would be ok. Other places could be in the history section, or even in a separate article.
Now, I'm done here. You're the boss. --Hdante 18:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
A good introduction would start with what Linux is and describe its heritage and composition. Contrasts can come a little later. I agree with your edits Hdante. --Yath 19:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Contrasting something with Windows and MacOS is not the same thing as "defining" Linux as !(Windows || MacOS). I think it's reasonable and common-sensical to explain something that is unfamiliar to many readers (a free operating system) by contrasting it with something that is familiar. (It is incontestable that, currently, far more computer users are familiar with Windows and MacOS than with GNU/Linux. If this changes at some point in the future, then you'll have more of a reason to change the intro.) —Steven G. Johnson 00:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I'm sorry, I forgot to mention this point. I would also find it reasonable if the concept of 'Windows' and 'Mac OS' were common sense. This is a serious concern, however. In a place where 68% of the whole population (and that would be 68% of 170 million) has never accessed Internet by any means, and only 16% have computers at home [2], I disagree that 'Windows' and 'Mac OS' are abstractions that would bring familiarity to the user (average user, new user, everything, except advanced user) further than something that has appeared on their screen when they pressed reset. Notice that the 16% who actually have a computer at home have a $5,00 copy of Windows (98, 2000, XP, etc.) installed on their computers either by their resellers (or by their nephews :-) ) and they don't know what this means (that is, they don't understand they have pirated a computer software, which is 'Windows'). If they have bought a computer in a supermaket they may have some unknown linux distribution, and they don't know what this means either. More than that, in general, people that will begin to use computers regularly will do so at offices or cyber kiosks (currently at ~25%) where not even this would be possible. In short, I don't agree that either 'Windows' or 'Mac OS' should be considered familiar to the user. The discussion, anyway, is not centered at this point. This is just more argument to the ones I have already stated. --Hdante 01:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to wonder how these people not accessing the internet, or without computers, happen to be reading Wikipedia. --Barberio 10:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Have you heard of the print edition? Wikipedia is supposed to be usable by anyone and everyone who can read English, so we can't assume this will be limited to the internet forever. See Wikipedia 1.0. Johnleemk | Talk 10:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we're not writing for a hypothetical printed version. We have to accept that our readers are reading Wikipedia online, or via a computer mirror, and make assumptions for readability on this. (Incidently, Wikipedia 1.0 is not firmly intended as a paper version, and may eventualy be published as a CD/DVD-ROM. And the project would mandate a level of revision for articles included to alter them to be suitable for which ever format is selected.)
This is purely a readability issue, the inclusions of specific examples highlights the meaning. In the situation where they do not know what Windows or MacOS is, they can select the wikilinks to learn more. These are common terms, and those who do not understand them are offered information about them. Removal of the links was taken purely on the basis of Linux advocacy. And to link to WP:NOT again, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. --Barberio 11:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

More technical info

This article needs more technical info. I'm curious about several things but finding the information on the Internet isn't going so well, even with google. It's raising more questions though; like in searching for the difference between preempt_voluntary and kernel preempt, I came across the idea of priority-inheriting semaphores. . . . .

How about running over these:

  • Comparison of the various IO schedulers
  • Explaination of the task scheduler
  • Preemption
    • Voluntary preemption (CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY)
    • Kernel preemption (CONFIG_PREEMPT)
    • Preemption of the big kernel lock
  • Priority-inheriting semaphores
  • MontaVista's real-time Linux work and Ingo Molnar's progress beyond

Some of these are theorized but not implemented (i'm not sure if priority-inheriting semaphores are written yet, I think they're in Ingo Molnar's patch); some are there already (Preemption); some are external patches (Molnar's realtime patches). We could use some info about the status of all of these. --John Moser 18:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although I'm not sure whether the stuff should all be inserted straight into this article or put into separate articles that are linked to from here. Now all we need is someone with the knowledge and time to do it.Tommstein 19:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
All of these issues are specific to the Linux kernel, and belong on that page rather than here. This article is about complete Unix-like operating systems using the Linux kernel, not about the kernel per se. —Steven G. Johnson 19:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Addressing POV

I would really like this article to become a featured article. The main objection I've seen from the previous nomination was that the article was too pro-Linux. This should be addressed. To start off, I added some anti-Linux links to page (one of the complaints). Masterhomer 23:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Gnome Screenshoot needs update

I think that the Gnome desktop screenshoot needs to be updated (it looks old and outdated). Since the KDE screenshoot is of the Suse desktop, lets have a Ubuntu desktop screenshoot. ~ Cody Somerville

This has been discussed A LOT on GNOMEs talk-page. I changed the picture to use the same as GNOME do. - David Björklund (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I added, then removed an POV tag after reading this page. However, I do want to bring up the point that really has failed to be addressed, and that is the article contains little or no mention of problems with Linux, esp. compared with other OS.

I'm not a very strong editor, so someone else should probably work on that.

Such as?Tommstein 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Windows

Why does the following sentence exist?

Since then, there have been numerous independent studies that show that a modern Linux desktop using Gnome or KDE is on par with or superior to Microsoft Windows.

I think that it should either have a reference to some studies or be removed. Else it provides a POV aspect to the article.-localzuk 22:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

While there should certainly be sources, there's a whole heck of a lot of other things that don't have specific sources listed, so I don't know why you focused on that one (and I actually remember reading about some of those studies). A lack of sources doesn't make something POV, it makes it unsourced. Unfortunately, the vast majority of probably every single Wikipedia article is unsourced, lest articles become illegible and no one ever add any information because they don't have an hour to spend before making every single edit.Tommstein 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I used the wrong term. I don't agree think it should be ok to just ignore lack of sources though as it reduces the credibility of wikipedia. I think I focused on that example because I was editing that block of text already. I will have a look at providing some sources throughout the article today. -localzuk 09:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I have now added a reference to an article by RedmondMag but could still do with some studies. -localzuk 11:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, sure, there's nothing wrong with asking for sources. I'll look later and see if I can't add some more myself.Tommstein 06:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's a couple more articles at least.Tommstein 07:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am re-removing the Hungarian search engine link from external links as it is not really useful to the english article. It should be in the Hungarian article instead. -localzuk 20:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The linux counter

I don't think the linux counter ([3]) should be classed as spam and removed. It is used by a significant number of linux users so does have some value in the article. Does anyone else agree?-localzuk 09:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with it.Tommstein 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

GNU/Linux

Shouldn’t this article be called GNU/Linux? Linux is a kernel (see Linux_kernel), the first statement of the article is false. --Windsok 10:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. I'm not sure where (a more familiar editor can probably help you there), but we've definitely agreed that this article should be Linux, not GNU/Linux. Johnleemk | Talk 10:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In common usage, the term "Linux" is overwhelmingly used to refer to the kernel+userland as well as the kernel proper. It is not Wikipedia's role to judge whether this usage is correct or incorrect; we can only be descriptive, not prescriptive. —Steven G. Johnson 17:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It is sad that Wikipedia now officially goes with common usage instead of correct usage. Authoritative, trustworthy encyclopedia indeed.Tommstein 05:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
+1 GNU/Linux --Iron Bishop 15:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Read a dictionary some time: they do exactly the same thing, eventually enshrining any usage that becomes sufficiently common. With language, there is no such thing as "correct" and "incorrect" in an absolute sense. There is only standard and non-standard. The use of "Linux" for kernel+userland has, for better or for worse, been overwhelmingly adopted by laypeople and professionals alike. (I happen to agree that it tends to be misleading...this places an extra burden on the article to be clear about what is meant.) —Steven G. Johnson 21:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
What dictionaries don't do is then make you look under something completely different for what is actually, technically Linux.Tommstein 01:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It is somewhat normal to say that a battery is running low on "power". Should Wikipedia adopt this convention, simply because it is common -- or should Wikipedia rather contain correct information? The way I see it, the dillema is the same.Skrewz 19:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
If you actually want it changed, then you're wasting your time discussing it here. Go find a Wikipedia:MoS subpage that deals with naming conventions. ¦ Reisio 21:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We had a disambig page at GNU/Linux (check the history) that I and others thought a reasonable compromise, but someone deleted it. Haikupoet 21:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Linux should be a kernel page with redirection to GNU/Linux. People have to learn that it was not just Linus but RMS and other GNU people without whom this would just be a kernel... Freedom to share 19:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Sign below if you support me...
Well, it should be pointed out that in the early days of Linux, there was little cooperation from the real "GNU" people, and many forks had to be done. Linux was not considered serious and many in the very GNU community dismissed it. So the OS based on Linux evolved on its own and many tools that were missing were brought from everywhere and those which could not be brought were created.
When Linux became popular, it became fashionable to rewrite history and get on the GNU/Linux renaming saga.
But there is a whole page devoted to the topic of the GNU/Linux renaming controversy here Miguel.de.Icaza 22:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The first users of GNU+Linux systems may have been Linux developers, but that doesn't change that the GNU project is the reason that an OS exists. FWIW, I also believe that when refering to operating systems made of GNU plus the Linux kernel, the term "GNU/Linux" is the most correct and least misleading term, and should be used in this article, and in general. Gronky 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please let's not turn this into a "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux" debate. The question here is not what the operating system should be called, it is what it is called. And seems indisputable that the vast majority of references to the Unix-like OS as a whole (not just the kernel, even though the "whole" is somewhat nebulous) use the term "Linux". This is true in the popular press, in trade magazines, and among most computer professionals. Even if you think that this usage is misleading (and I agree it clearly causes confusion regarding the distinction between the OS and the kernel of the same name), it is not Wikipedia's place to try to change established and widely accepted (for better or worse) usage. —Steven G. Johnson 01:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You ask for no debate, and then restate your position :-) I won't do the same. Gronky 01:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
But you haven't defended your position. You've only explained why you prefer "GNU/Linux" (I happen to prefer it myself, for similar reasons), but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a forum for our personal opinions. The question is, why should Wikipedia contradict widely estabished usage to push a nomenclature preferred by what is indisputably a minority? Regardless of what term you prefer, I would think that adopting anything other than the mainstream terminology (while noting the controversy) violates w:NPOV. —Steven G. Johnson 02:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
(I know you know the content of this paragraph, but I just want to be complete.) The topic of discussion is an operating system which is made from the GNU operating system plus some third-party components including the kernel called Linux. The operating system exists because the GNU project was trying to make an operating system and spent 8 years writing software, gathering volunteers as well as building a business and collecting donations to pay staff programmers, writing software licenses, consulting lawyers, explaining and building awareness of the philosophy which got them to where they were, writing documentation, etc. etc. Linux is a single software component, albeit one of the major ones in an OS, which by complete coincidence could be used with the GNU operating system.
It can be easily seen that calling this combination "Linux" is extremely misleading. Most GNU OS users think that Linus Torvalds wrote an operating system, and often, when they learn about GNU, they rationalise that the OS is called "Linux" because GNU is just a set of tools, and the kernel is the real OS. So even in the face of the truth, the a misunderstanding is very hard to correct. The scale of the difficulty even causes many people who know about the facts, to not bother using a less-misleading term.
Wikipedia is here to spread the sum of human knowledge, not misunderstandings (even very popular ones). Using the term "Linux" to describe what is essentially GNU, is the opposite of Wikipedia's goal. Do you disagree with that? Gronky 02:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that language is not defined by reason, it is defined by usage. Yes, I personally also feel that the term is misleading and unfair. So are lots of terms in English, as in any language except perhaps artificial ones like Esperanto. (An egregious recent example is podcasting which has nothing really to do with pods or iPods. An old example is electromotive force, although that's mercifully starting to disappear.) Yes, we have to be especially clear on the distinction between the kernel and the Unix-like OS as a whole — doubly so because the most common name can give a wrong impression. But we don't have the power to change the English language by fiat, whatever its flaws, and we are doing readers and our own goals a disservice if we don't describe concepts using standard nomenclature. w:NPOV is painful when you disagree with the mainstream, but it's still our policy. —Steven G. Johnson 04:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't language: it's a proper noun. This issue would be identical in Esperanto. My point stands: we are making the topics more difficult to understand by writing the term that readers want to see instead of writing the term that is meaningful. Gronky 06:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Unlike the name of, say, a city, or a person, a commercial product, or a word in an artificial language, there is no clearly accepted authority who has sole power to designate the "correct" name for the Unix-like OS combining the Linux kernel, the GNU project, etc. Hence this is akin to determining the meaning of any other word in a living language rather than to the "proper noun" cases you are thinking of. —Steven G. Johnson 17:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

While it is correct that Wikipedia has a policy of using the most common usage, and not the most "correct" usage (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)), there is a proviso: "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." In the case that there may be a conflict, then one has the backup policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision): "Be Precise, when necessary." It's easy to argue that that applies here: linux can refer to an OS or to a kernel. Therefore more specific names can be chosen in accordance with precision. I guess you could argue that precision is satisfied by choosing the name linux kernel for that article. I'd be cool with that. But I just want to note that an argument for the title GNU/Linux can be mounted without being prescriptive. -lethe talk + 18:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lethe, and in fact I am going to mount that argument now. To be clear, I advocate the following set of articles:
I completely agree that the above setup is not neutral, because it inevitably favors one side in the GNU/Linux naming controversy (namely, the side of the controversy that wants to call the system GNU/Linux). But note that the statement “Linux can be used to refer to GNU/Linux” does not violate NPOV. The converse, “GNU/Linux can be used to refer to Linux” is also correct, though ambiguous. Both terms refer to the same thing, but one of them also refers to something else. Hence, the statement “Linux can be used to refer to GNU/Linux” makes a lot of sense on a disambiguation page.
What is more, the current setup, where
  • Linux is an article about the family of operating systems, and
  • Linux kernel is an article about the Linux kernel,
is obviously also not neutral, for exactly the same reason: it favors one side in the GNU/Linux naming controversy. Hence, whichever setup we choose, we cannot avoid favoring one side in an ongoing debate. This means that we have to choose based on criteria other than that of neutrality.
The reason why I think calling the system “GNU/Linux” is preferable to calling it “Linux” is clarity: it avoids confusion. Lots of people will type in “Linux”, expecting to see an article about the Linux kernel. (After all, that’s the original and strictly correct meaning of the term. ) On the other hand, lots of other people will type in “Linux” expecting to see an article about the family of operating systems called “Linux”. This ambiguity is the essence of the problem, and the reason for the disambiguation page.
Had people not been insisting on calling the system “Linux”, we could put the article about the kernel under Linux and the article about the system under GNU/Linux, avoiding the need for a disambiguation page. On the other hand, had people not been insisting on calling the system “GNU/Linux”, we could put the article about the system under Linux and the article about the kernel under Linux kernel, also avoiding the need for a disambiguation page. But because both sides of the argument are still vocal, the term “Linux” remains ambiguous and controversial.
Some people will argue that the term “Linux” is more common than “GNU/Linux”. For example, it is used almost exclusively in the news media and in casual conversation. I agree, but I have an important counter-argument. I believe that the vast majority of people who use the term “Linux” would not object to calling it “GNU/Linux”. First of all, most users probably don’t even know about GNU, much less the naming controversy. Second of all, many people don’t care about the controversy, and use “Linux” because it is shorter and/or more common. Finally, many informed people use the term “Linux” as a convenient short name, while recognizing “GNU/Linux” to be a more appropriate and unambiguous long name.
I estimate that the people who will actively object to the name “GNU/Linux” are approximately as numerous as those who will actively object to the name “Linux”. After all, the debate is still raging.
Thus, we know the following:
  • Most people will not object to the name of the article, whether we call it “Linux” or “GNU/Linux”.
  • No matter what name we choose, some people will object. It is reasonable to assume that there are approximately as many people on each side of the argument. In any case, we do not know, and in the end it is not important.
In light of NPOV, I think the name “Linux” is less excusable than “GNU/Linux”. One is ambiguous, the other isn’t. One hides the controversy, the other doesn’t. Both violate NPOV, and this needs to be stated clearly in the article whichever name is chosen. — Daniel Brockman 06:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You forget that there are a good number of people who find the "GNU/Linux" name rather offensive, and indicative of a power grab on Richard Stallman's part. Look, if the Debian folks and others want to refer to their product using that label, well, there's nothing preventing it. But the only really essential GNU component in Linux is gcc, and you can't make that case based on a compiler. Everything else, including libc, can be replaced with something else, and a lot of components aren't GNU-related to begin with -- KDE, X, Apache, things like that, that would be considered essential to any general purpose Linux distro. It is true that Linux uses a good deal of GNU code, but it was there to be used, wholesale or as spare parts. Haikupoet 07:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I certainly did not “forget” that some people find the name “GNU/Linux” offensive. For example, I said that “I estimate that the people who will actively object to the name ‘GNU/Linux’ are approximately as numerous as those who will actively object to the name ‘Linux’.” On the other hand, you seem to have “forgotten” that other people find the name “Linux” offensive. Of course you can replace glibc, but from another perspective, you can also replace the Linux kernel. That would be an argument for calling the system just “GNU”. Can you name a major distribution that uses a C library not based on GNU code? From an application developer’s perspective, GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd are very similar, because they both use glibc.
Of course this is a controversial issue, and of course there are two sides of the argument. I don’t want to get in to the argument itself here, because it is largely irrelevant. My point is that “Linux” and “GNU/Linux” are both offensive, but one is ambiguous, and that is a good reason to choose the other one. When someone calls POV, you can say “I know, we’re sorry, but there is no way to satisfy NPOV in this case, and this name is the least ambiguous one.” As I said, the article needs to admit the controversy of the name no matter what it’s called. — Daniel Brockman 07:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It is also interesting to me how you object to the name “GNU/Linux” by claiming that some people find the name “indicative of a power grab on Richard Stallman’s part”, while failing to recognize that the entire reason why Richard Stallman wants people to use the less ambiguous name is because he feels that the open source movement is trying to co-opt the efforts of the Free Software Foundation.
To me, it is obvious how using the name “Linux” to refer to what is largely, in philosophy and in heritage, the GNU system (which RMS and the FSF of course had been working on for eight years before Linux even entered the picture), and using the term “open source” to refer to what is essentially the vision of the Free Software Foundation — it is obvious how one may consider this offensive and indicative of a “power grab”. Again, I did not bring up this issue, and I do not think that this is the proper forum for it, but I am forced to meet your arguments. — Daniel Brockman 07:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone else wants to chip in, by the way, feel free... :-) Quoting Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), “If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and your article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, you should probably—not in all cases, but in many—use something more precise than just that word or phrase.” It also suggests that if there is a conflict over the precision of a word, “A term that has fewer definitions is often the more appropriate choice.” That supports “GNU/Linux” over “Linux” in this case.

Another option would be to make “Linux” a disambiguation page, and have the articles in “Linux (operating system)” and “Linux (operating system kernel)” or maybe “Linux (operating system)” and “Linux kernel”. I still think these options are worse than “GNU/Linux” and “Linux kernel”, because (1) they still do not avoid violating NPOV, and (2) the name “Linux (operating system)” is more ambiguous than “GNU/Linux”, because of the common confusion about what is an operating system and what is an operating system kernel. To many people, “operating system” and “operating system kernel” are mostly synonymous, so the name “Linux (operating system)” may not be effective in reducing confusion.

Regardless of its bias in the naming controversy, “GNU/Linux” is really the least ambiguous and most precise term I can think of. No matter what side of the debate you’re on — if any —, you will know what the term refers to. — Daniel Brockman 10:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've refrained from chipping in because I think your argument is complete. If I had to comment, I'd say that two of your arguments should be stated more solidly. The first is that you refer to the GNU contribution to the OS as being "a set of tools from the GNU project", but this ignores that the set of tools were written as part of a planned effort to make specifically those components that were needed, including the boring ones, to make a free software operating system exist. GNU's contribution can only be called a "set of tools" if we also call FreeBSD a "set of tools". GNU and FreeBSD did not need to write a windowing system or a typesetting system, X Windows and TeX existed, so they used them. GNU did not need to write a kernel, Linux came into existence, by chance, so people used it.
The second issue is that on the point about "GNU/Linux" versus "Linux (operating system)", I think it's important to note that the ommission of "GNU/" has been proven to mislead people about what the OS is and where it came from. But I've made that point above. I always make my point based on facts/history, so I'm glad to see someone with a procedure-based approach has come to a similar conclusion. Gronky 23:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I see some prescriptivist arguments popping up again and would just like to mention that they are incompatible with Wikipedia. Thanks. --Yath 02:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, this whole article is inaccurate, there is no such thing as an operating system called Linux, There is the linux kernel, and there are Linux Distributions, which use the Linux Kernel and usually GNU userland. In my opinion the page Linux should be a disambiguation page linking to 1. Linux Kernel, and 2. Linux Distributions, Operating systems which use Linux as their Kernel --Windsok 09:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of people who do not call the system "Linux", and there are reasons for it. Here we have an operating system which is composed of many subsystems. Some are bigger, some are more basic, some were developed earlier, etc. In virtually all categories, if you want to pick a single name, "GNU" is the obvious choice. Moreover, "Linux" already means something different. So, the unnamed system could perfectly go as "GNU", which seems to me is closest to reality. But people don't try to push for it, even if it would be more justified than calling it "Linux"; instead, they advocate for "GNU/Linux", which reflects it is a composed system, and gives credit to the second principal component of the system (arguably, too much credit, as the contribution from GNU overwhelms that from Linux). Now, the main argument in favor of calling it all "Linux" is "more people call it like that". I believe this asks for a disambiguation page, as has been multiple times suggested. jbc 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the comment below to here from my talk page because I do not regularly edit the Linux article, and I want input from those who do. I deleted an external link to GNU/Linux search engine for american people because I was deleting linkspam inserted in other articles by 195.56.243.80 (talk · contribs), and Linux was in the list.

Do you know what does it mean GNU/Linux?
GNU/Linux is a nonprofit operation system,
so it cannot be a part of any commercial
actions. Every GNU/Linux site are nonprofit
organization. Okay maybe the link of
www.linux.com is a commercial site ;)
But if I realized well you haven't any
problem with linux.com Why you have a problem
with LinuxBazis? http://www.linuxbazis.hu/?nyelv=en
is an international NONPROFIT GNU/Linux links collection.
It's not my site. It's just my favorite that's all.
If you can't understand that, that's your problem, but
I'll fight with you in every day, every hours, every
minutes, and secconds. LinuxBazis has every right be
present on the external links of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
Why??? Because the WikipediA is a qualified online LEXICON which is
built by the people of the Internet (not only by your registered members).
http://www.linuxbazis.hu/?nyelv=en is GNU/Linux knowledge base like the
other international GNU/Linux sites (www.linux.com for a sample).
LinuxBazis is not my site, and I don't know who are the editors and I don't
care, but I wanna see my favorite GNU/Linux search engine on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.56.243.80 (talk • contribs) .

-- Dalbury(Talk) 02:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The link may well have a relevance to the Hungarian wikipedia (and is in their external links section) however the english translation that keeps showing up here is incomplete, most of the links are still untranslated or lead to non-english sites. Calling it international is a bit of a stretch.
Even if the translation was perfect, what unique offering does it have? Why is it more worthy than a thousand other english linux sites? Type linux into google and the first two hits returned are linux.org and linux.com, perhaps that's why they are included? High relevance.
The linkspam that Dalbury was cleaning up was hotelmesh, which is often inserted in numerous articles by the same IP. This site is one of the sponsored links on www.linuxbazis.hu (top right box). Is that link being added in the interests of expanding linux knowledge or does it fall squarely under link spam.
My view is it's spam, and I don't think this anon editor is doing their favourite site, any favours at all; which is a shame really, because LinuxBazis's best efforts are being misrepresented. — Graibeard 04:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Those were my thoughts exactly. Also, Wikipedia is not a Lexicon - it is an encyclopedia.
Further to the 'Google' argument - linuxbazis does not appear within the first 15 pages of results for linux - so it is not a 'relevant' site to the English Linux article. Please stop adding it. -localzuk 09:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought I remembered the link, and I see it has been reverted numerous times before. Persistant little bugger (in the Southern American English sense). -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I've thrown a 3RR notice out there, but with the current backlog I don't expect to see much action on it. If anyone has a favorite administrator out there now might be a good time to get in touch with them about a block. --StuffOfInterest 17:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
To their credit, an administrator did go ahead and block that IP address. Unfortunately, our Hungarian spammer has moved onto a new one. --StuffOfInterest 19:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction changes

Hello,

if someone here speaks french or german, I suggest to look at the way we changed the introduction

  • to make very clear that we speak here in this article about the operating system, not about the kernel
  • to make everyone happy, wether they think the operating system should be named Linux or GNU/Linux
  • to avoid to spend half of the introduction to speak about the troll on wether Linux or GNU/Linux is an appropriate name


fr:Utilisateur:Jmfayard

Meaning of Freax

I have here a copy of Just For Fun, Torvalds' autobiography/bio of Linux, and he says that Freax was "Freaks with the requisite X". The article states it meant "Free with the requisite X". Why? --'Net 07:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably a mistake, or a incorrect source. Why not WP:BB and change it? (Including the reference of course) :)-Localzuk (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation

Alright, I don't care about the actual pronunciation dispute - but the plaintext examples given look *very* localised. I (complacently) added 'American English' before the 'my nicks' etc since as a British English speaker the IPA schwa -> short 'i' is decidedly foreign. I call for someone more linguisty to make this a bit clearer to speakers of other English vars. Sorrry for terseness, broken keyboard 82.71.38.203 15:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Studies?

I have just noticed that the following has been inserted (changed from a prior version):

Some studies, such as those by IDC and Gartner have argued that Linux had a higher TCO than Windows. Others, such as those by Soeren Research and RFG claim the opposite. Many of the studies, most notably studies which were later found to have been funded by Microsoft themselves, have been criticized as unbalanced and biased, although a number of studies which gave results favorable to Linux were commissioned by companies such as IBM and Novell.

Why are Novell and IBM mentioned? IBM is a huge company which has just as vested an interest in Windows as it does Linux and Unix. When were the studies funded by Novell done? Before or after their purchase of SuSE? If after, then that is fine, but if before then the company should be removed - as they also had a vested interest in Windows as their software operates (predominantly) on the platform. -Localzuk (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

History: Stallman's name seems vandalized

"Richard Stallmankukifasz" or something... -Mardus 16:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think this article is a tad bias

Especially in the Usability section. Whoever wrote the usability article probably doesn't have much experience in being a Joe Shmo user. Also it may not be mentioned in the article but keep in mind, it may be easy to install Linux but once you do then what?

I think it was relatively good in citing sources rather than trying to state an opinion. There have been reports both anecdotal and methodical that the switchover of Windows-trained users is the costly part; new users train as easily on Linux as on Windows, they get their job done in approximately the same amount of time on average, and they have the same number of horror stories to tell, even.... --Alvestrand 02:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The article claims that Linux is user-friendly now, which is true. It wasn't always this way; back in the days of clumsy text installs with no hardware autodetection, Linux was mostly for the hardcore. Debian only recently adopted an ncurses-based install. Considering the strides made, and the attempt to meet in the middle, Linux's user-friendliness is proven. Isopropyl 03:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

UltraSPARC port

The Linux Kernel rarely even compiles on this arch, I run it on sparc64 hardware myself and to put it quite bluntly: I usually have to add code that has magically been broken, deleted, or whatever to get it to ever work usually. This is on the 2.6 branch, which is a pain in the arse. I think parhaps this fact should go mentioned so something gets done about it. Unless I become a full time sparc64 porter, which I can't be bothered doing, unless OSDL plan on giving me a job that is. --Kintaro 20:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning it here isn't going to make the kernel maintainers make the situation any better. I have a USPARC myself, although its not see Linux in quite some time due to the wonderful (complete lack of) speed of gcc-created code on that platform... --Kiand 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

LKML merge

Somewhat offtopic, but after a bit of an edit-war, a user has proposed merging parts of the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey with the Linux kernel mailing list article. So I'm calling on interested editors to give their opinion there, so a consensus can be reached on this without an edit-war. Thanks. --BluePlatypus 19:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Move Criticism of Linux Section to Windows_vs._Linux

I really don't see why the following should be on the Linux page:

"Criticism of Linux

  • Microsoft: Get the Facts — Microsoft site that compares Windows Server software and Linux and comes to the conclusion that Microsoft software has a lower TCO than Linux."

I feel the above "Criticism of Linux" link to Microsoft's site should be moved to the Windows vs. Linux page, and a link to http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/better_choice.html added from Novell's site for rebuttal. After all, wouldn't it be better suited on that particular page rather than the main Linux page? If not, I may look into additions of criticism links for the main Windows page as it appears wanting in that respect. :) Let's play nice and move this to the Windows vs. Linux page, what say you all, hmmm? :) --Demonslave 13:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that link is already on the Windows vs. Linux page, so why have it listed on the Linux and Windows vs. Linux page? --Demonslave 13:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Should the following be mentioned?

  • The fact that since many websites are developed for Internet explorer on windows, (particularly banks) sometimes browser bugs occur on linux.
I would say no to this one as it is more to do with web browsers than the OS they run on (ie Firefox for Windows has the same issues with IE only sites as the linux version does)-Localzuk (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oracle clusters on linux.
Should be discussed on the oracle page.-Localzuk (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
This I would say possibly if it can be backed up with citations (which I am sure there are many) -Localzuk (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linux/Archive_4&oldid=1046033060"