Talk:Linux/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 What do people want out of this
2 See also

[edit] What do people want out of this

Just having looked through this it seems that there have been no clear requests by either side as to what form their preferable outcome would be. Please define them below.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outcome by localzuk

I would like it to stay as it is, with Linux being the term used and a section regarding the controversy included. I would also like to see a small sentence in the lead saying something like 'There has been some debate over the use of the term Linux to describe the OS, particularly by the FSF who request that people call it 'GNU/Linux' ' or similar.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree — Isilanes 19:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There are at least two separate issues. One is naming, and you've given an opinion on that (which I disagree with) but the other is description: is the OS made of "Linux plus some extras" or is it "GNU plus Linux plus some extras"? The scope of this article is a "Unix-like" OS, so GNU is present in every such Linux-based OS. Further, as well as being present, it is a much larger contribution in each such OS, it is a contribution that pre-dates Linux, and it is the contribution which is the reason for a complete OS existing (the other parts, such as Linux and X Windows, that made an OS exist were made for goals other than to make an OS exist). So it seems much more accurate to define this OS (whatever name you use) in respect to the primary contribution: GNU. I'm not saying that the intro should not mention the Linux kernel, I'm just disagreeing with the people who say the intro should not mention the GNU OS. What do you think about the issue of mentioning the GNU OS in the intro? Gronky 19:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In think you are becoming confused by the use of the term Linux. This article describes the unix like OS. It doesn't matter if it is predominantly made up of GNU, Linux or TuxRacer. What matters is the fact that the majority of the world call this OS 'Linux'. The 2 terms, Linux for the OS and Linux for the kernel, should be considered as completely separate terms. But if you disagree, please state in this section what you would like to see as the outcome and don't just discuss further. If we know what people want we can come to a compromise a lot quicker!-Localzuk^(talk) 20:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. I added two words "GNU and" to the first line. Gronky 20:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with having that small sentence in the lead, that would tantamount to advertising FSF position. I prefer to leave it is is now, have a GNU section in which the matter is explained with a link to "naming controversy" article. At most I could accept a "see Linux naming controversy article" link in the lead if you think it's absolutely needed. -- AdrianTM 20:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the intro is supposed to be a summary of all the section in the article so it can stand on its own as a mini-article.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with giving GNU this much prominence in the lead sentence. You -can- have Linux without the GNU toolchain; it's rare, but Linux's only relation to GNU is the fact that it is licensed under the GPL. Everything else is a matter of choice for individual implementers. Also, Stating in the very second sentence what GNU advocates the name should be is absolutely POV-pushing -- this is a minority view and does not deserve this much prominence. Given that the text was added by an anonymous user with no history of editing this article or participating in this discussion, so I'm going to remove the changes by the anon and by Gronky until we've discussed this further. -/- Warren 20:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Warren, no one is talking about the GNU toolchain, we're talking about the GNU OS. The toolchain is just a subset. You're description of the Linux-GNU relationship needs clarification: The relation between the Linux kernel and GNU is the GPL - but the relation between the OS we are talking about and GNU is that GNU is part of the OS we are talking about. (and by "a part of", I mean "is the primary part of".) There are no Unix-like OSes that use Linux for a kernel and that don't use GNU. Gronky 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"GNU OS" != "Linux". Sure, GNU OS can use the Linux kernel, but... so? There are plenty of systems out there that implement "Linux" without much in the way of GNU components. iPod Linux is the first example of this that I can think of off the top of my head. Mobile phones from Motorola, too. I'm sure if we poked around a bit we could find plenty of other examples of Linux being used without GNU... think of embedded systems where the IHV will use a scaled-down Linux kernel and write their own drivers and userland stuff. You don't have to use anything by GNU to accomplish this, and yet, such products are described in the media and by the manufacturer as "Linux". The only shared aspect between all these embedded, portable, desktop, and server devices is that they use the Linux kernel. No GNU in sight. That's why I don't think "GNU/Linux" deserves equal footing to "Linux"; it's really only one way of making use of the Linux kernel. -/- Warren 22:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about embedded systems or firmware, the article is about Unix-like operating systems. Yes, you can put Linux on a computer (big or small) and little else and turn it on and you will be "running Linux", but you will not be sitting at a Unix-like OS. Please do the poking around that you suggest is possible. Gronky 16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

So then delete Unix-like from the opening line. Chris Pickett 04:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

...and make this article about Linux-based OSes that don't include GNU (such as a few embedded systems and toy projects) and make "GNU/Linux" into an article about Linux-based OSes that do include GNU (such as the distros of Debian, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Novel, gNewSense, etc.)? That is very worth considering actually. Gronky 04:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion/prediction is that GNU/Linux will never become the main Linux-and-GNU-and-other-software-based-OS article for any length of time, so you may as well not bother pursuing that. But I do think distinguishing between different types of Linux OS here is good (those with GNU and no other stuff, those without GNU but other stuff, those with GNU + other stuff). Don't be so quick to dismiss embedded systems either---if even 10% of cellphones ran Linux they would still outnumber all Linux-and-GNU-and-other-stuff installations, and that doesn't seem entirely unlikely to me. Chris Pickett 05:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should contain "GNU/Linux"" somewhere since GNU/Linux links to this article. The naming controversy is discussed further down, so I don't see the need for any additional verbiage in the opening paragraph. In fact the current revision is perfect, IMHO -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(In other words: Agree) -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree This debate was going on for such a long time already. Can we please put a stop to it? It is a waste of disk space. Freedom to share 22:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outcome by mms (withdrawn)

I revoke my proposal. -- mms 10:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Linux redirects to GNU/Linux which contains the current Linux article. If there will be an article about Linux-based systems that aren't a GNU variant, this should be another article because it doesn't fit in "Linux" or GNU/Linux. The whole Wikipedia must be reviewed what the authors were referring to when they set links to Linux. They should be changed to GNU/Linux or Linux (kernel). We should also review if there are still statements like "Linux [meaning the operating system] was started by Linus Torvalds in 1991". This is heavily misleading. -- mms 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree as per WP:NCON (please do read it if you have a spare moment) -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 21:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NCON#Resolving disputed names within articles supports my request if you agree, that "Linux" is a variant of GNU. I have already read this text and found little to defend my request. But I think these guidelines aren't universal. They are written as an outcome of disputes. And I think this dispute isn't already incorporated into in the rationale of this guideline. -- mms 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think the WP:NCON policy should be changed, then you should discuss your concerns on the appropriate discussion page. Not here. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, same as comment above. -- AdrianTM 22:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Your argument is based on a minority view with very little to support it - you even admit that our guidelines don't support it. -Localzuk^(talk) 22:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, same as comment above (Please note, however, that my commits to the english Wikipedia are below even 100, so my voice doesn't count so much) --Liquidat 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, because an article called Linux-based systems would be a content fork of the current Linux article. — A.M. 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outcome by AdrianTM (partially withdrawn)

~~GNU/Linux redirects to GNU/Linux naming controversy.~~ In Linux article have only "Linux" in introduction, no undue weight and advertisment for minority views. In GNU section we have the short explanation about RMS request to call the OS GNU/Linux and a link to GNU/Linux naming controversy, that's I think is supported by WP:NCON as User:Sakurambo already pointed out. -- AdrianTM 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree as GNU/Linux is an operating system and not a naming controversy. -- mms 22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The name is "Linux", GNU/Linux is a pure invention of Stallman to promote his ideas piggybacking on Linux success and now it's promoted by trolls here and in forums because people in general don't care about the issue trolls will probably have success in imposing this. -- AdrianTM 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"The name is "Linux", GNU/Linux is a pure invention of Stallman [...]". Adrian, behave! :^) — Isilanes 10:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Partly agree, partly disagree - GNU/Linux should not point at the controversy page and we should have a sentence about it in the intro but everything else should stay as it is.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Disagree -- GNU/Linux has an appreciable number of hits at Google, and not not just on web pages discussing the controversy. From the links I posted above, "the GNU/Linux operating system" (including the quotes) gets 143,000 hits, "the Linux operating system" gets 817,000. So people that prefer the name GNU/Linux do seem to represent a significant minority. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree -- ~~No redirects. Also, m~~Minority view does not mean that it's not even worth mentioning. It just means that it's not the majority view. 80.233.255.7 22:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

it is mentioned, but not right in the description where it would be receive undue weight and advertising. -- AdrianTM 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree -- I kind of missed the flame war here (thankfully), but wasn't most of this settled on Talk:Linux (disambiguation)??? Nobody typing in GNU/Linux expects to read about the GNU/Linux naming controversy, and that's just going to annoy people. Off-topic, I notice you call people trolls a lot, AdrianTM. Perhaps it's more the case that they just have an alternative viewpoint. 70.53.42.233 03:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Chris Pickett 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You might be right about disambiguation, I only proposed it because this article might talk about systems that don't contain GNU at all, which doesn't make sense, it also doesn't make sense to limit the article artificially only to OSes that contain GNU code. As for "trolls" I only take the behaviour as it looks like, some people just ignore arguments and make the same arguements over and over even if they were refuted repetedly (not to mention in archive there's an entire discussion only about this issue), but you are right, I will cease calling them that. -- AdrianTM 07:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned in "Another outcome by 80.233.255.7" I changed my proposal about redirecting GNU/Linux directly to the name controversy article instead it needs a special dab page because people don't seem to agree what people expect to get when they type "GNU/Linux", so in my opinion it should redirect to a disambiguation page that contains:Linux, GNU variants or GNU, and GNU/Linux naming controversy -- AdrianTM 15:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outcome by 80.233.255.7 (withdrawn)

Having read all the different opinions of people, I've changed my stance.

"Linux" is a name commonly used to refer to free Unix-like operating systems that use the Linux kernel. There is some controversy with regards to whether the name is appropriate; prominent figures within the free software community, such as Richard Stallman, suggest that a different name, namely GNU/Linux, be used instead. In this article, however, the name "Linux" is used.

That's basically what I'd like to see in the intro. (Of course, phrased in a different tone. This is just an ugly draft by a non-native speaker.) GNU/Linux would contain stuff from the controversy article, and would make it entirely clear that Wikipedia uses "Linux" for the sake of a more common name. (The controversy article even starts with "GNU/Linux is".) 80.233.255.7 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - This would be a good opener for the GNU/Linux naming controversy article, but not here. It gives undue weight to the controversy and fails to mention any of the other topics covered by this article. (See ~~WP:TPA~~ ~~WP:TS~~ WP:LS (sorry about that. WP:LS is what I meant)) -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 23:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it possible to maintain neutrality without mentioning that the there is a disagreement? Also, I didn't mean to say that this would be all that is said in the intro. 80.233.255.7 23:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead section is to provide a brief summary of the entire article. Simply mentioning that it is known as "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" seems perfectly adequate, given that the controversy is discussed in a later paragraph with a link to a separate article. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, and you are incorrect the disagreement in naming is mentioned in the article, it really make the article look bad if it's in the introduction. -- AdrianTM 23:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another outcome by 80.233.255.7

I realize I'm just throwing ideas around, but voting seems to be a somewhat more constructive way of discussion than the infinitely long threads in the archives. In short, should GNU/Linux redirect to GNU or GNU variants? I "proposed" this change a while ago, but it was promptly reverted because it was not discussed on the talk pages. 80.233.255.7 23:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a name used by a minority, frankly I don't know where it should be redirected. If it's redirected to Linux there will always be discussions about Linux systems that don't include GNU tools or discussions that "Why we don't talk about GNU because GNU/Linux is redirected here", if we redirect ot GNU is wrong because people might be actually interested in Linux.

The only solution that I see would be: have a short dab page for GNU/Linux that explain that this another name for Linux OS and have links to Linux, GNU variants or GNU, and GNU/Linux naming controversy this way it's NPOV it let's people go to the page they actually want, it also informs them about the issue of naming controversy and allow us to treat system that don't contain GNU tools in this Linux page. -- AdrianTM 07:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You could still talk about non-GNU Linux systems here. In fact, that would make an interesting section, since I don't know much about such systems. And, it would serve to educate people pushing the GNU/Linux name that really only inclusion of the Linux kernel is the definitive test for a "Linux operating system". I think the key question you have to ask is, are there any users that either type GNU/Linux in the search box or wiki link to GNU/Linux who expect a different article than Linux? I know for sure I was frustrated when previously I typed in GNU/Linux and got a disambiguation page. Cheers, 70.53.41.253 10:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (oops, I haven't been signed in... Chris Pickett 10:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC))

Then again, I don't know. Perhaps what would be good is a subsection summary of GNU with a "Main article: GNU" header. I'm thinking that maybe a section that looked like this would be neat:

== Components of a Linux operating system ==
=== The Linux kernel ===
=== GNU userland components ===
=== non-GNU userland components ===
=== Third party kernel modules ===
=== Vendor-specific packages ===

And it could clearly say that either the GNU or the non-GNU userland components are optional in some systems. Actually, that's sort of what I tried to do in the history section, but it could be better. Then in the Etymology section it could say, "The FSF insists that a Linux OS that includes GNU components be referred to as GNU/Linux, although this usage is not widespread." Then, GNU/Linux could be an extremely short page that says "GNU/Linux refers to a Linux operating system that uses GNU components and the Linux kernel, which may commonly be referred to as just "Linux". For more details, see GNU/Linux naming controversy. Well, these are just some ideas... it's 6 a.m. at night here (ouch)... Chris Pickett 10:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

And finally, did you notice that my "idea" for the GNU/Linux page was just your idea paraphrased? :) Sigh... time to sleep. Chris Pickett 10:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

From experience I can say that people interested in GNU/Linux are likely to be a lot more interested in GNU than Linux. If they weren't, they'd just call it Linux. 80.233.255.7 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's true then my proposal to have it redirected to a dab page makes perfect sense. Some people expect GNU some Linux, why not redirect GNU/Linux to a dab page that contains: Linux, GNU variants or GNU, and GNU/Linux naming controversy? -- AdrianTM 15:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't make it a redirect to yet another dab page. Make GNU/Linux the actual page with a single line. There's no need for a redirect, and it will minimize the volatility of GNU/Linux (IMO). Just try it as an experiment. My guess is people will start adding repetitive stuff to it though, which is unfortunate. 70.53.41.236 15:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC) (chris pickett) --- the reason i say not a dab page is that you aren't really disambiguating anything. it's clear what gnu/linux refers to.

Not according to 80.233.255.7 -- AdrianTM 15:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

GNU/Linux article saying "this is Linux" is not going to work, because "GNU/Linux is the GNU system with Linux as its kernel." That's what most people understand by GNU/Linux. Same for a disambiguation page. It's GNU. Linux in its name is the kernel, not the operating system. 80.233.255.7 16:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought we already had this discussion, according to most of the people the OS is called "Linux". -- AdrianTM 16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(Replying to AdrianTM) The dab proposal doesn't make sense IMO. "GNU/Linux" is a Unix-like OS which uses GNU and the Linux kernel. This article is about the Unix-like OS which uses GNU and the Linux kernel. It makes sense that someone who looks for "GNU/Linux" should arrive directly at this article. "Linux" is one commonly used name for the topic of this article, and "GNU/Linux" is another commonly used name for the exact same topic. Gronky 17:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outcome by Warrens

Building on an edit Chris Pickett made earlier today, I updated the lead sentence to read:

Linux (IPA pronunciation: /ˈlɪnʌks/, sometimes referred to as GNU/Linux) refers to any Unix-like computer operating system that uses the Linux kernel.

Mainly I did this so that the grammar of the sentence is still okay, while applying a fairly neutral representation of the GNU/Linux name early on -- while avoiding diving explicitly into the controversy from the get-go. We don't need to do that right away. We could mention it later in the lead section, giving it an appropriate weight compared to other super-important aspects of Linux: it's free and open-source, it's increasing in popularity, it's used in a wide variety of devices, etc. etc. But let's be realistic here – all of those things are more important and interesting to the casual reader than a naming controversy. -/- Warren 23:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to change it back, you're welcome to. I don't claim to be an authority, as I have only first-year university English education, but I've published several peer-reviewed computer science technical articles in English and it's completely correct to say, "Foo, or bar, refers to...". Perhaps though it's more clear to say, "Foo, also known as bar, refers to...", so go ahead and make that change if you like. Or you could revert to your version, I'm not too miffed. In general, in formal writing, it's better to avoid parentheses, elipses (...), and dashes (-, --, ---), if at all possible---save these for email and informal conversation. Perhaps though the Wikipedia manual of style disagrees. Chris Pickett 23:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 23:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree -- AdrianTM 08:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree I would also be ok with a version like "... referred to as GNU/Linux, see naming controversy". --Liquidat 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree -- one reason I withdrew my proposition was that there are Linux systems that are not GNU/Linux; I disagree with yours for the same reason. GNU/Linux is more a "GNU system that uses Linux" than a "Unix-like system that uses Linux". Why? Because the term originated from Richard Stallman, the man who started the GNU project, and if he's not the one to determine what the term GNU/Linux means, then something's not right here. 80.233.255.7 21:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your point here, and I agree with it. The phrase "sometimes referred to as" is my idea of a half-way solution, whereby we acknowledge the use of the term without getting into these important semantics so early on. We could change the word "any" to simply "a"... this would perhaps avoid the suggestion that "GNU/Linux" refers to -all- Unix-like operating systems that use the Linux kernel. What do you think? Would that help? -/- Warren 21:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I disagree with changing "any" to "a", because then the article would be saying that there is one specific operating system called "Linux", and, as AdrianTM said below, there is no such operating system. (I also agree with his suggestion to merge Linux into Linux distribution.) — A.M. 07:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- "and if he's not the one to determine what the term GNU/Linux means, then something's not right here." You do realize though he can't name products that are made by other people/companies even if those use GNU code. In a sense that's why I'd support merging Linux to Linux distributions at least there it would be clear(er) who names what. ""Linux OS" or "GNU/Linux" is something that doesn't really exist as such, there are though "Linux distributions" of course that would not eliminate the people with strong opinions who will ask to call that article: "GNU/Linux distributions", but at least we'll eliminate a duplication of an endless discussion. -- AdrianTM 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, of course. I'm not saying that we should rename "something" to "GNU/Linux" because Richard Stallman said so. That's not my point at all. (Plus, it has been discussed to death anyway.) My point is that he can, however, say what GNU/Linux is. He can choose whatever object and name it GNU/Linux and that is what GNU/Linux (and not the object) would be, because he's the one who coined that term. And he says that GNU/Linux is the GNU operating system with Linux as its kernel. He doesn't say that GNU/Linux is the Linux system with GNU packages. And hence, if GNU/Linux is to redirect visitors to somewhere, it should redirect them to GNU. 80.233.255.7 23:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Well, I think he said that GNU/Linux is GNU + Linux.... -- AdrianTM 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Uh... How about some math then. Let GNU be the GNU operating system, let Linux be the Linux kernel. GNU + Linux = GNU system with the Linux kernel. 80.233.255.7 09:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Sure, that's the POV of Stallman. Let's push it!!! -- AdrianTM 13:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    - I heartily disagree with RMS having the divine right to define a term. What about the "War on Terror"? Are we to accept only what the White House says? What about "reeducation" during the cultural revolution? Words are words, nobody owns them. Chris Pickett 04:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Your comparison is inappropriate. None of them are common nouns. If "war on terror" would have been called "asdfgsfhgdh", nobody would have had any objections. (Except for, perhaps, that a readable name be used.) Okay, GNU implicitly suggests that you think of the object as a gnu. But really, GNU is the GNU operating system first and foremost: "complete Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu's Not Unix)". [1] Do you think Stallman really meant a different gnu when he coined GNU/Linux? Has an alternate meaning for the name GNU gained significant popularity? 80.233.255.7 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        I wasn't saying anything about the gnu animal. That they are common nouns does not matter, but I'll give you non-common-noun examples. The FSF might call GNU an operating system, I call it a collection of userland packages that provide some POSIX/ISO functionality. The FSF might say GNU+Linux is a complete operating system, I might say GNU+Linux is part of a complete operating system that consists of GNU+Linux+X+Firefox+Thunderbird+GNOME+KDE+ssh+Apache+apt+etc.etc.etc. If I paint a rubber ball a particular shade of red and name it CJFP (my initials, an acronym) and say that CJFP is all a child needs for entertainment, everyone else in the world is free to say, "CJFP is just a red rubber ball." Regardless of trademark issues. 70.53.40.116 18:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Chris Pickett 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Somehow I think you didn't get his point. He just said that Stallman doesn't get to name things. He can very well name his own products and things that he distribute directly, but once the code is free anyone who use free code they can call their products whatever they want (especially that the free code is a minority in the new system) It would really discourage people to use free code if they would know that somebody can come after them and say "no, no, don't call the product [...], call it GNU/[...] you have to give us credit for our code (somehow I thought it was free, was I mistaken?) -- AdrianTM 16:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Not only that, but let's say Microsoft wanted to define Windows 95 as "Windows 95: The most advanced operating system in the world." That doesn't stop a good part of the world from defining it as "Windows 95: 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition." (Note that this actually happened.) 70.53.40.116 18:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Chris Pickett 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Actually it is you who entirely missed my point. Forget it. 80.233.255.7 16:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Moreover, I just thought about this issue, Linux is a trademarked name, and as we all know Linus Torvalds is against GNU/Linux name, I don't know what authority Stallman has to name generic systems, but I know what authority Linus has to forbid anything being called "GNU/Linux" if he doesn't like, and he doesn't. -- AdrianTM 18:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        That only applies to vendors, i.e. not you, me, or Wikipedia, but sure, it's a factor. (You might want to add the argument to the naming controversy page.) Chris Pickett 18:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        I spent some time looking for GNU/Linux trademark infringement issues on Google, but didn't find anything supporting the argument. It might come across as original research. 80.233.255.7 23:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Well, there's the trademark section at the bottom of Linux, but I think it's moot since the LMI will pretty obviously not go after people selling GNU/Linux. 70.53.40.116 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        That's correct, my comment was relevant to our discussion where people started to claim that GNU Project can name their products however they want, I was merely stating a fact no, they need to comply with trademark legislation and since Linux trademark belongs to Linus, actually to Linux Mark Institute it depends on them if they can use it or not, that's not "original research" that's a fact. However, indeed they won't probably go after them, Linus is even fine with GNU Project using this "GNU/Linux" name _if_ they release a Linux distribution. -- AdrianTM 00:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        But he can't dictate what the GNU Project name their operating system. He even can't force others to call the Linux kernel Linux (it's free software). But he could enforce his trademark if there are vendors who sell something different as Linux. Every "Linux" distributor does so. Since Torvalds himself claims there is something like a Linux OS and he calls it "Linux", too, he sues no one for feeding his ego. -- mms 18:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        No, you don't understand, he can dictate GNU Project not to name a system that uses Linux kernel "GNU/Linux" (if he chooses so). And Linux registration as trademark was not to feed his ego, he didn't even register it in the first place and that caused some problems, please inform yourself before you badmouth somebody. I'm also not sure where you got that "Since Torvalds himself claims there is something like a Linux OS" it would be really useful to provide us a reference in that regard. -- AdrianTM 19:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        »If you release free software, you need to learn to let go!«, remember? So this application of trademark can't be used in this case. It just works the other way around. He can prohibit if someone trades something (containing Linux or not) and names it "Linux" (in the field of software). Do I really have to provide a reference to Linus Torvalds saying Linux is an operating system? Go to the GNU/Linux naming controversy page. -- mms 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        You certainly don't understand the issue at hand, yes, Linus can't ask Stallman or anyone else how to name an OS that uses Linux kernel, however he could ask anyone how not to name their products, and more precisely he can ask anyone to not use the name "Linux" (or "Linux" as part of a name) because of the trademark. It doesn't matter that Linux code is free, it doesn't give you any right to the trademarked name. The code is free, the name is not. (By the way, I'm pretty sure GNU is trademarked too, or it should in case it's not) -- AdrianTM 20:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        I think you don't understand that GNU/Linux isn't the operating system that the GNU Project develops. This is the name they suggest for a variant of GNU which uses Linux as its kernel. So Linus Torvalds can not dictate what the GNU Project names its operating system. You can sell Linux and call it Linux. I think you must pay some fee but in general this is allowed. If you sell something different and call it Linux, Torvalds can use his trademark to prohibit it. If you sell Linux and don't call it Linux, trademark can not be applied. Since Linux is GPL'd copyright doesn't help either if you don't violate it. -- mms 22:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        I just pointed out that GNU Project can't name anything "GNU/Linux" without Linus' approval, that's a fact that you can't deny. They can call it GNU or whatever else they want, but they can't use the name "Linux" in it if they don't have approval from Linus or the company that manages the trademark for him. You can't sell something as "Linux" if you don't have the approval from Linus even if it's bit-by-bit the kernel that he released. It's a trademark, you can't use it to sell a product without approval of the trademark owner (you can only use it under Fair use (US trademark law) as Wikipedia does) -- 23:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        I also looked at the page that you graciously pointed me to but I couldn't find anything to support your claim. I couldn't find any reference where he calls it "Linux OS", maybe I just missed the paragraph, please point it to me. -- AdrianTM 20:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Yes, exactly. He never says "Linux OS". He speaks about "Linux" and you have to guess if he means his kernel or the prominent variant of GNU. -- mms 22:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Exactly? Didn't you say the opposite before? - "Since Torvalds himself claims there is something like a Linux OS and he calls it "Linux" "- I asked you where does he says that. I see that he talks about concrete cases: Red Hat Linux, Suse Linux, etc. You made a positive claim, you need to come with some reference about that claim, I still fail to see where Linus makes such declarations (especially in that page you mentioned). So, please, point us where he "claims there is something like a Linux OS" -- AdrianTM 23:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Exactly, but he never says exactly "Linux OS" – at least not that I know of. Instead he talks about "Linux". Sometimes it seems he talks about GNU/Linux – I wrote "Linux OS" before to be more precise than Torvalds but not to upset you and others – and then he talks about the Linux-kernel.
        
        »Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or "SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux," because if you actually make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous.«
        
        Quote from: Moore, J.T.S. (Produced, Written, and Directed). (2001). Revolution OS [DVD].
        
        »Umm, this discussion has gone on quite long enough, thank you very much. It doesn't really matter what people call Linux, as long as credit is given where credit is due (on both sides). Personally, I'll very much continue to call it "Linux".«
        
        Quote from: Linus Torvalds, "Lignux, what's the matter with you people?", comp.os.linux.misc newsgroup (3 June 1996). -- mms 23:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        I'm hope this doesn't come across as snide, mms, but perhaps part of letting go is not being so insistent about GNU/Linux when a clear majority of people call it Linux? The only thing stopping people from calling software whatever they want and defining software as however they see fit is bona fide trademark and/or license violation and/or libel lawsuits. (Which to me cancels the entire argument between mms and AdrianTM.) 70.53.40.116 00:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree for the same reason as 80.233.255.7. — A.M. 07:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outcome by Chris Pickett

[edit] Proposal

Mostly I'm tired of seeing this bickering, I think you're all wasting hours and hours and hours of your lives. So here's something that seems fairly neutral to me, but I might be wrong about that.

GNU/Linux naming controversy actually gets moved to GNU/Linux.
GNU Linux redirects to GNU/Linux.
GNU Linux naming controversy redirects to GNU/Linux.
At the top of GNU/Linux, explain what GNU/Linux is, according to the FSF (GNU OS plus a Linux kernel), and according to some others (Linux kernel with GNU packages). While RMS can define any terms that he likes, others are just as free to offer alternate explanations for those same terms.
Explain also that Wikipedia has adopted the convention of calling it Linux, in very clear terms. (Apparently this goes against WP:ASR, but it can go on both talk pages.)
Instead of going on and on about the name in Linux, describe under what conditions it may be called GNU/Linux, and be dry and technical about it.
In a section on system composition, describe those systems that are explicitly not GNU/Linux, since I think that is interesting.
Change the topic sentence of Linux to read: "Linux (pronunciation:...) refers to any Unix-like operating system that uses the Linux kernel. These operating systems may be known as GNU/Linux when they include GNU packages." (Similar to what Warrens has below.)

I don't think that's factually incorrect, and I don't think it's particularly unfair to anybody either. Chris Pickett 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] first reactions

not really interested -- I've little interest in the explanation of the naming controversy, so I don't really have much of a comment on most of this statement. What I would like to say is that this really isn't a "waste" of our time... this is truly a hard thing to nail down accurately. Perhaps not as hard as the lead section of Jesus, which has generated vast amounts of discussion over the years, but has resulted in a beautifully-crafted piece of text. Hopefully it won't take us as much work to sort this out :-) but it can be done. -/- Warren 08:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Like you I believe that lead sections and definitions are important. I guess I think there is more that can be done to improve the quality of the article, and once that's in place the lead section will almost write itself. Kind of like how an abstract for a paper is best written once the paper is done. 70.53.40.213 08:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Chris Pickett 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Strongly disagree~~ as GNU/Linux is an operating system and not a naming controversy. "GNU Linux" doesn't exist. So this maybe shouldn't be just redirected to the assumely wanted article but to a disambiguation page. -- mms 11:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting that GNU/Linux was a naming controversy. I was suggesting that GNU/Linux is a term that the FSF wants you to use for any Linux operating system with GNU packages, and that the page is a good place to discuss reasons for and against that. Can you see that? 70.53.40.116 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Chris Pickett 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  - You suggested to leave Linux as it is and move the content of GNU/Linux naming controversy to GNU/Linux and redirect accordingly. So there would be the GNU/Linux naming controversy explained and not GNU/Linux, the operating system. But this is what readers would expect when they search for GNU/Linux. If you ghettoize GNU/Linux to a different article than Linux, you give a majority POV undue weight. GNU Linux should not just redirect to anywhere. This term is considered incorrect by both RMS and Linus Torvalds. -- mms 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    - GNU Linux is unimportant. I also suggested adding some explanation to the top of GNU/Linux. Indeed, if you look at the controversy article, it is already defining what "GNU/Linux" is. But most importantly, my suggestion is that "GNU/Linux" is a term (just as Linux is a term), and Wikipedia has to choose between Linux and GNU/Linux. Since it has chosen Linux, and the vast majority of what would otherwise be discussed in GNU/Linux is discussed in GNU and Linux, it seems to make sense to move the bulk of the naming controversy article there and perhaps expand it a little. Chris Pickett 18:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Followup: about the majority POV bit---well, I think the majority POV is that GNU/Linux is the term the FSF wants you to use to describe combination Linux and GNU operating systems. In fact, I think that's something we can ALL agree on. It's not getting "ghettoized", it's offering a clear explanation according to multiple parties as to what "GNU/Linux" is. Note that the opening sentence of Linux also refers to GNU/Linux. Chris Pickett 18:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
not sure -- first proposal is almost like my initial proposal to have GNU/Linux redirected to naming cotroversy article, but this appears to make more sense, but what else should GNU/Linux contain and what about the Linux article? The second and third proposals are pretty irrelevant because they already redirect there if I'm not wrong. -- AdrianTM 18:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- The second and third proposals are basically just redirect adjustments. I added bullets to my paragraph to make those points stand out. The point is really that "GNU/Linux" is a term for what the majority of people just call "Linux", and it seems to be an appropriate place to discuss the naming controversy, and perhaps also groups that use the term. Chris Pickett 18:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

not sure -- Okay, you convinced me somewhat. I striked my »strong disagree« but I don't yet »agree« as the current articles aren't in a state that I can accept them in the suggested places. If there are different articles GNU/Linux and Linux they must link to each other very early. As I see in this discussion, Linux should not be changed radically. Some plan to extent it to cover "Linux-based systems that aren't GNU/Linux". I don't think this is what the people are looking for, but as a small subsection it would be nice. The GNU/Linux article on the other hand could be more about the real origin and the philosophy behind it – with links to GNU and Linux. -- mms 19:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good! Progress! We have 1 "not sure" from each "side" :) :) I bolded your apparent positions. I don't like the naming controversy page as is, largely because of the formatting (each argument takes up way too much space), so yes, it needs some work. I would suggest cleaning up the naming controversy page before the move, if you like. Linux presently links to Linux kernel, GNU, and GNU/Linux in the opening two sentences, and GNU/Linux should do the same, exchanging GNU/Linux for Linux of course. Agree about the non-GNU Linux systems. It is important that the text be as neutral as possible, and acknowledge every view of the term GNU/Linux. (The controversy article already does this to some extent though.) Chris Pickett 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Liking it - it removes all the fuss about the name - as both articles discuss exactly what is defined. I would say that both articles need to address that there can be overlap between the subjects but I would support this.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What should GNU/Linux be about (part 1)

~~Against~~ Agree only if GNU/Linux content is restricted to controversy issue, otherwise see my explanations about what is going to happen: if we have both GNU/Linux and Linux articles it would only move the name fight from this page to the thousands of pages that talk about Linux, then you'll see guerilla fights all over the Wikipedia with changing links back and forth from "Linux" to "GNU/Linux". Maybe I'm just paranoid. It also smells like a POV fork. "Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies." WP:POV_fork -- AdrianTM 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree with that. It's not a POV that Linux is the majority name for the operating system, and it's not a POV that GNU/Linux is what the FSF considers the correct name for Linux. In my opinion, the current situation is that people will have name fights because both Linux and GNU/Linux point to the same place, as either name will do. Indeed, if the change occurred, people could link to Linux when they want the OS, and GNU/Linux when they want an explanation of the FSF name for the same OS. Chris Pickett 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Won't you agree with me that this will merely move the fight from this article to all the related articles, I can imagine the fight on Ubuntu page for example on linking to Linux or GNU/Linux... and the fight will be repeted on all the pages, unless we keep GNU/Linux content limited to name controversy thing, which would be fine by me (almost the same thing as I proposed with my redirections GNU/Linux -> GNU/Linux naming controversy) but will it stay like that, or it will become an entire article about Linux? And then people will fight to link to it or to Linux. Did I explain this well? -- AdrianTM 00:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Yes, you explained it well, there was a misunderstanding. I am proposing the GNU/Linux article be about the term GNU/Linux, the explanation of the name/term, and the controversy. Some history to provide context would be useful as well. There should be no content fork, all the content about the OS goes on Linux. Are we agreed now? Because I think we agree. Really just what I propose: move the GNU/Linux naming controversy page to GNU/Linux.
      - I do agree with that. Thanks for exaplanations, still it's unclear to me how would you stop people to hijack that article and make it about the OS (in competitions with Linux)? -- AdrianTM 22:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        I guess you could have a line at the top that said "This is about the name GNU/Linux and the controversy surrounding it. For the operating system, see Linux." On the Linux page you could expand the top line to have "For the controversy surrounding the name see GNU/Linux." I hope to stop editing WP, it has been taking too much time and I just have other priorities right now. Good luck with all this! Feel free to propose the page move, it's controversial so you need to use the 7 day process. Also, one thing I think you could do that would really help is divide the naming controversy page into subsections, with each argument being the title of the subsection, e.g. === The name Linux is ambiguous === as a subsection, with the text and corresponding quotes inside that subsection. I tried to make a table but got reverted, but I think this would work well... it would show up in the table of contents and the reader could get an instant summary... anyway, sorry for the off-topic, take care Adrian. Chris Pickett 05:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux system with GNU packages or GNU variant using the Linux kernel?

Disagree merely because of the addition of "At the top of GNU/Linux, explain what GNU/Linux is, according to the FSF (GNU OS plus a Linux kernel), and according to some others (Linux OS with GNU packages). While RMS can define any terms that he likes, others are just as free to offer alternate explanations for those same terms." Since people kindly pointed it out to me all the time, I will do the same thing and say that it would be giving undue weight to a tiny-minority opinion. Plus, you should find sources to support that anyway. 80.233.255.7 00:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify the tiny minority opinion and elaborate on why it's getting undue weight? I count 4 opinions in those two sentences you quote. I'm sure we can work this out if that's the only sticking point. Chris Pickett 00:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I mean specifically the part that says "according to some others (Linux OS with GNU packages). While RMS can define any terms that he likes, others are just as free to offer alternate explanations for those same terms".

You should find a credible source to support the argument that there are people that consider the definition of GNU/Linux to be the Linux system with GNU packages. It could also be a misunderstanding, and not a conscious decision based on a disagreement with Stallman's definition. In that case, that should also be noted. Regarding undue weight: anyone can define terms, that's out of the question, but not all definitions are worth the inclusion in an encyclopedia. 80.233.255.7 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I didn't write that very well. I was trying to express that some people see GNU as an OS, others see it as a collection of packages providing POSIX functionality. It should have said Linux kernel plus GNU packages. I can probably find sources for that (i.e. people that can't agree on what the "operating system" is). However, I think the top of GNU/Linux naming controversy as it stands pretty much covers it, and that issue is raised on the controversy page too. Agreed then? Chris Pickett 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Kernel plus packages sounds much better. Changed vote. 80.233.255.7 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"You should find a credible source to support the argument that there are people that consider the definition of GNU/Linux to be the Linux system with GNU packages." -- I would say that every distro that packages Linux kernel and GNU tools and then they put out the result as "Linux" support that idea. (maybe with even less emphasis on GNU). -- AdrianTM 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Adrian, this isn't really worth it. FSF thinks GNU/Linux is the correct term for the OS, others think it's a term made up by the FSF to promote the contribution of GNU. That's covered in the naming controversy article already. Other people think Linux is the correct term for the OS, the FSF thinks Linux is a term that ignores the contribution of GNU (also covered). Some people think GNU is an OS missing a kernel, other people think it is an (important) collection of userland packages. (I think that's covered too.) I really don't think there's much to argue with here. 80.233.255.7 has issues with GNU/Linux being defined as Linux operating system with GNU packages, which I actually think is fair enough; nobody defines it as that, although they might define it as less flattering things. Come on, we're trying to reach a consensus here. Chris Pickett 01:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

None of them call the result GNU/Linux, in effect indicating that they're ignorant of term at all and not merely disagree with its definition. 80.233.255.7 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree if the alternative definition of GNU/Linux mentioned is "Linux kernel plus GNU packages" and not "Linux system plus some GNU packages". 80.233.255.7 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, isn't it true that what I call a Linux operating system, the FSF would prefer I call GNU/Linux precisely because it includes GNU (packages)? I think acknowledging that "Linux == operating system" for a great deal of people is important in the GNU/Linux article (it's in the naming controversy article). As far as I see it, there is only really one definition of GNU/Linux: it's a term defined by the FSF. They think it is the correct term for Linux kernel + GNU (packages) + other stuff (see GNU FAQ for other stuff bit), other people think it is an incorrect term. This is the root of the entire controversy. Um, I don't mean to backpedal, but can we agree on that too? Anyway, I don't think these are major issues. I think getting the move done and then focusing on cleaning up GNU/Linux and Linux will take care of it all. A move request like this takes one week. But we should wait for others in this page to weigh in (Gronky, Chris Cunningham, Warrens, Sakurambo... did I miss anyone?) Chris Pickett 02:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, isn't it true that what I call a Linux operating system, the FSF would prefer I call GNU/Linux precisely because it includes GNU (packages)?

That's one of the reasons, I guess. Though, I think, they focus more not on the code contributions but the contribution to society they've given and the philosophy behind it. But I don't really want to get into another debate on that right now.

I think acknowledging that "Linux == operating system" for a great deal of people is important in the GNU/Linux article (it's in the naming controversy article).

Here's roughly how I see it: there's an anonymous operating system. Some call it Linux, and some call it GNU/Linux. As long as it is entirely clear that Linux in GNU/Linux refers to the Linux kernel I don't see a problem here. I do not wish to see articles suggest that GNU/Linux really refers to the Linux system, or that Linux is actually the GNU/Linux system. I'm not talking about my personal preference. I'm just hoping that it'll finally get to a somewhat neutral point where people aren't coming in all the time after having read the article and posting long comments about "what this system should really be called". 80.233.255.7 02:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I just call mine Debian or Ubuntu or Gentoo depending on the machine since I personally don't like to use silly umbrella terms unless I actually mean all of them ;) But seriously, I'm happy with the GNU/Linux naming controversy article as is. However, per your statement above, you might not be. It clearly says most people just call GNU/Linux operating systems Linux. Please read it before you endorse my proposal, because I'm actually advocating that "Linux" be the Wikipedia-wide term for the OS, "GNU/Linux" be the Wikipedia-wide name for the FSF+others preferred term for the OS, and that with the exception of the Linux kernel page itself, "Linux kernel" be used for the kernel and not just Linux (since it's ambiguous). So, in summary, my proposal is, "move, plus minor cleanups to put all the name stuff in one place, and all the OS stuff in a different place." Cheers, Chris Pickett 03:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is for a particular term to become irrelevant. Ideally, after the visitor clicks on a link that says "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" and reads the introduction of either article, they would be instantly aware that there is a disagreement, that Wikipedia uses the most popular name, that one is not better than the other, that they can make up their own minds and so on. Of course, I'm not suggesting to literally include all that information in the intro; that's what hyperlinks and concise wording is for.

Of course, there are obviously situations where one is more appropriate than the other.

Generally, it's about keeping the visitors as informed as possible.

I had completely forgot about that one, but there's another issue. There's the Linux kernel, the Linux or GNU/Linux systems, and Linux systems that don't have anything to do with GNU. The latter two may introduce some ambiguity as well. 80.233.255.7 04:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That said, I've read the article a couple of times and I think it does a rather good job at presenting all that stuff in a neutral fashion. (Which is basically what I hope for.) 80.233.255.7 04:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Linux kernel" or "Linux (kernel)"?

I know we can't move the content from Linux kernel to Linux. But I have a problem with the the current title of Linux kernel. It implies there is an operating system called Linux and here we have an article about its kernel, the Linux kernel. But there is obviously no consensus that there is an Linux OS. The system the Linux article is about consists of many part which themselves have many authors and is sold by many vendors. So here is not one company which creates an operating system and names it; the kernel has no name of its own and is referred to as the suchsuch kernel. So if we just say "Linux kernel" we pretend there was this conventional situation. I suggest to switch again to Linux (kernel). -- mms 11:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that is pedantry in its highest form. The term is neutral - it is an article about the Linux kernel. We wouldn't write it as the Linux (kernel) anywhere so why should that be added as a qualifier. I think you are seeing POV where there is none and trying to push your GNU pov again.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"We wouldn't write it as the Linux (kernel) anywhere so why should that be added as a qualifier." There are already many articles in Wikipedia with a disambiguating word or phrase in the title, such as Georgia (country), Mars (mythology), Division (sport), etc. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic. While it is true that Linux is often referred to as "the Linux kernel", it is also often referred to as just "Linux"; for example, in Ubuntu 6.06, packages containing compiled versions of Linux are named like this: linux-image-upstream version number-another number-CPU architecture (for example, linux-image-2.6.15-25-386). — A.M. 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with moving Linux kernel to Linux (kernel). — A.M. 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I'm fine with Linux (kernel) (however I don't care very strongly either way) -- AdrianTM 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree -- given that the kernel's name is indeed "Linux" and not just "kernel of a Linux system" as evident in early release notes, I see no reason not to use the uniform disambiguation style. 80.233.255.7 01:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be agreed upon by most of the people with one comment on pedantery, I think you can go ahead and make the change (unless people who watch that page protest to this idea... so maybe you can propose this over there) -- AdrianTM 03:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, I'm trying not to be involved, but I do remember that Linux (kernel) was the name within the last month or so, check the page logs for both and you should see. Personally I feel that Linux kernel is the right title, since the only place it should be referred to as Linux is on the Linux kernel page itself. Everywhere else in Wikipedia it should be Linux kernel to avoid confusion, the only place Linux is used alone is when it so blatantly clear from context (package names in Ubuntu hardly count as prose, btw). Also, it's completely clear without the parentheses what Linux kernel means. The parentheses tend to suggest that it is a kernel, perhaps somehow separate from the OS, but in fact it is obviously not. As far as I can see it, the only reason to add the parentheses is not agreeing that the OS should be called Linux, i.e. it is GNU POV pushing, like Localzuk said.

If you want my real opinion, I don't care at all about popular misconceptions, and Linux should be the main kernel page, Linux-based operating systems should be the OS page, Linux distribution should be about the distributions, and GNU/Linux should be about the term and the controversy. This would at least serve to educate people who come to WP to learn.

Finally, one last thing I'd like to mention before disappearing is that there are several pages including Debian and Linux distribution and probably GNU that do not link to Linux and I think that's terrible. Chris Pickett 06:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second outcome by Warrens

Here's a second idea:

Linux (IPA pronunciation: /ˈlɪnʌks/) is an umbrella term that refers to Unix-like computer operating systems that are built on the Linux kernel. A Linux-based system used in conjunction with GNU system utilities and libraries is sometimes referred to as GNU/Linux.

Again, I'm trying to avoid being explicit about the controversy in the lead paragraph by using the phrase "sometimes referred to as". I'm also trying to make it a bit more clear that GNU/Linux is a term derived from it being used in conjunction with GNU stuff. Further, I have provided a reference to the well-known Linux System Administrator's Guide, which characterises the debate but doesn't take a stance on the subject (like what we're trying to do)... turns out they use the phrase "sometimes referred to as GNU/Linux" which I'm fond of.

Is this an improvement? -/- Warren 07:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

About Unix-like being a vital qualifier, it was you who suggested that not all Linuxes use GNU. In fact, if you take away the GNU, you have a pretty non-Unix-like OS, unless you have an alternate POSIX/SUS/ISO/whatever userland. So I removed the Unix-like precisely because of your iPodLinux argument way up above. Anyway, have fun! :) Chris Pickett 18:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second proposal by AdrianTM

Realizing that Linux is a trademarked term maybe it would be more appropriate to place the content in this page to Linux distributions. I don't think it's OK to use the term "Linux" in general (especially when there is no consensus about what it represents) when it can actually be used only to designate "Linux distributions": meaning distributions that are allowed by Linux Mark Institute to use the term "Linux". Also, I think there's a not-needed duplication, can you bring any reasons why we need two separate "Linux" and "Linux distributions" pages? (initially I considered that they should not be merged because I considered that even a self-build (non-distribution) system using Linux kernel could be called "Linux", but now I think this is a marginal case and might not even be true because of the trademark issue) So, what do you think about this idea (of course "Linux" would redirect to Linux distributions). So, merge or not merge?-- AdrianTM 19:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be scared shitless because of the trademark. Trademark is much less powerful than you can imagine. We can write about whatever trademarked product we want. We are even allowed to describe trademark itself. And you are allowed to build a Linux-based system of your own and call it Linux. Trademark can't be applied as long as you do not trade. -- mms 01:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not scared, but whatever what about merging "Linux" into "Linux distributions"? -- AdrianTM 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agree -- I think that's something worth considering; both articles seem to focus on the same subject. I think encyclopedias generally don't have issues with the use of trademarks, though. 80.233.255.7 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not "using a trademark in encyclopedia", that's not a problem under Fair_use_(US_trademark_law), the problem is if an encyclopedia or actually anybody uses a trademark in an incorrect manner. If an encyclopedia uses a trademarked term in a generic manner my understanding is that the owners of the trademark if they want to keep it as a trademark have to take legal action in order to protect the trademark: Genericized_trademark#Avoiding_genericide So my guess (obviously I'm not a lawyer) is that "Linux" applied to kernel is fine, "Linux" when applied to "Linux distributions" (that are allowed to use Linux in their name) might be fine, while just using "Linux" in general for "any operating system that uses the code of Linux kernel" might not be OK. But I might be wrong, if you consider that I'm wrong in this aspect just ignore this reason, consider though that Linux and Linux distributions are basically talking about the same thing. -- AdrianTM 02:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

#Summation of the counter-GNU argument. Chris Cunningham 14:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/n/Talk%7ELinux_Archive_13_1fba.html"