Talk:Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Peer review Linux has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Former FA Linux is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article Milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Linux as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French or German language Wikipedias.
This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Portal:Free software
 Free software Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Linux is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
To-do list for Linux: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • update references for adoption to match recent events
  • talk more about international usage
  • finish translating missing content from French page: servers, embedded devices, and security
  • organize history better
  • find out about what things came from BSD
  • talk about X, BSD, and possibly TeX in the history section
  • organize usage section better
  • add better references
  • reference for all the different pronunciations
  • copy-edit
  • work towards FA status
  • references for linux gaming
  • picture of typical distribution
  • expand comparisons section (no need for a "criticisms" section), mention device drivers here
  • fix screenshots in Interface section so that text flows better
  • move the remaining stuff near the end about uptake/adoption/migration/usage to Linux adoption and summarize in History
  • talk about non-GNU systems such as Busybox


  1. /Archive 1: Sep 2001 - Jun 2004
  2. /Archive 2: Jun 2004 - Apr 2005
  3. /Archive 3: Apr 2005 - Sep 2005
  4. /Archive 4: Sep 2005 - Mar 2006
  5. /Archive 5: Mar 2006 – May 2006
  6. /Archive 6: May 2006 – Jul 2006
  7. /Archive 7: Jul 2006 - Sep 2006
  8. /Archive 8: Sep 2006 flame wars
  9. /Archive 9: Sep 2006 - Dec 2006
  10. /Archive 10: Dec 2006 - Jan 2007
  11. /Archive 11: Jan 2007 flame wars
  12. /Archive 12: Flame wars part two
  13. /Archive 13: Flame wars p. three
  14. /Archive 14: Jan 2007 - Feb 2007
  15. /Archive 15: Feb 2007 merge/GNU debates
  16. /Archive 16: Feb 2007 - Mar 2007

Contents

[edit] Useful info from Archives

Archive 15:

  • Merge this article with Linux distribution: result was no
  • Merge info from French article: result was yes
  • Pronunciation: we need sources for all pronunciations, .wav file would be good too

FAQ:

  • Can we rename this page to GNU/Linux? No, the vast majority of people and companies call it Linux, and we already mention the alternate name in the lead and its own subsection.
  • Do we need the GNU history? Yes, GNU played an important role in the development of Linux as we know it today.

[edit] Naming proposal

  1. Linux : Just a kernel. Not an operating system. Not usable by itself.
  2. Linux + GNU userland : A minimal operating system. Usable by itself.
  3. Linux + GNU + X + Gnome/KDE/XFCE/Fluxbox + lots of other free software programs : Featureful free operating system.

1 is called "Linux" or "the Linux kernel". 2 and 3 are called "Linux" by some, "GNU/Linux" by others. In the interest of clarity let's not use the term "Linux" at all, but let's use "the Linux kernel" for the kernel and "the Linux OS" for the operating system, although it would be more accurate to call the latter "the GNU/Linux OS". --MarSch 11:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This _will_ lead to such nonsensical facts as: "The Linux OS was begun by Richard Stallman and was originally called GNU." --MarSch 12:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You could just say something like: "The history of the Linux OS starts with the GNU project started by Richard Stallman. blah blah GNU blah blah Linux blah blah. The Linux OS was formed in its entirety when Linus and friends added the GNU components."Mike92591 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not bad, Mike. I quite like that. --MarSch 12:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Should I put it in? Mike92591 02:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where yous're thinking of putting that sentence, but if it's for the intro I'll ask you to hold off for a few days if yous don't mind. I've just made a change there mentioning the history of the OS and I think this version might be generally acceptable, so I'd like to see the reaction to it. Gronky 13:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The only people who have a serious problem with comprehending the difference between linux-the-OS and linux-the-kernel are those GNUites who believe in Stallman's obnoxious advertising clause. Everyone else seems to be capable of using "Linux" to refer to the free operating system in general without being confused into thinking that the whole thing was written by Linus Torvalds in some bedroom in Helsinki one day in 1991. Seeing as this is the article on the operating system, any use of "Linux" within is blatantly obviously being used to refer to the OS and not the kernel specifically.
Your potential-confusion argument is in fact very salient, as this is exactly how the article read before I removed Gronky's intro edit again. There is no need to continually harp on about the existing components prior to the kernel: as there wasn't actually a complete free operating system at the time, and as Linux development massively ramped up the GNU development community, pre-1991 is really pretty trivial in the scheme of things. Chris Cunningham 12:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Last time I checked it was you who had problems with understanding the difference between the kernel and the system by claiming that it "appeared" in 1991. An incomplete operating system is an operating system nonetheless. 80.233.255.7 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. It would greatly please me if this inappropriate, unconstructive and generally pointless argument about an easily-countered plea for free advertising by the FSF found a home elsewhere than the Linux talk page, from which it continues to rise from its grave to eat the brains of the living. Unfortunately it appears that a number of editors believe that bickering over the name and early history is more constructive than improving actually important areas of the article. Chris Cunningham 15:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. In the end though, I mean correct me if I wrong, but the GNU license doesn't say anything about having to add GNU to the name of your system if you use the software. I thought the whole idea behind GNU was to create a free system that was availible to everyone for use, not to be hunted down and nagged to death because someone wants to pitch a fit over a name.
Of course what makes me laugh is that GNU people are always saying things about how all that was missing from the GNU system was a kernel and then they down play it by saying that the kernel is simple and all this other stuff. However the one thing that has plagued GNU from the beginning is the Herd kernel. I think it just pisses them off is that Linus made the Linux kernel in such a short amount of time. Anyways.... Socerhed 12:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The advertising thing is exactly my point. Stallman made a committed stance against the four-clause BSD license because of the advertising clause, and yet is determined to enforce exactly the same thing upon Linux. Chris Cunningham 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a confusion of three separate issues. Stallman was against the 4-clause BSD licence because it was GPL-incompatible, not because he disagrees with requiring credit. Second clarification is that Stallman is not determined to enforce his naming preference the way BSD enforced getting credit as Stallman didn't put anything in GPLv2 to require certain naming and hasn't even suggested adding such a clause to v3. And third is that Stallman does not want to enforce any naming at all, he confirms in interviews that the freedom to choose names is a valuable freedom that everyone should have, and then he goes on to give his reasons for why he endorses certain names and why he hopes you'll join him in using those names (note no enforcement anywhere there). Gronky 13:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Socerhed: This is not the place to discuss what you think pisses off the GNU developers, and nobody has claimed that the licence has any naming requirements for the OS. There are three issues here: One is what the correct name is, a second is how to describe the debate over the two names, and the third is how to describe the OS (whether GNU should be mentioned prominently, minimally, or not at all). Gronky 13:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discussion of GNU components is nitpicking (?!)

I added this sentence to the intro, just after the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph:

"The GNU project had been working on the GNU operating system since 1983. Linux systems incorporated GNU, the Linux kernel, and other third-party packages such as X Window System and TeX."

But is has been reverted with the edit summary: "discussion of GNU components is nitpicking".

I thought it was quite a fair wording. If discussion of GNU is nitpicking, then discussion of Linux is worse nitpicking since it's a smaller, newer contribution. The people who actually wrote the OS should be mentioned, especially if Sun, HP, IBM, and Novell are to be mentioned for just supporting of the OS after it was written. What do others think of the sentence I added? Gronky 14:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

GNU already gets a whole sentence in the intro. Why do you need to go through the history? Too much weight on GNU for the amount it's discussed in the article. 74.15.52.236 14:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's pointless. Linux only "relied" on GNU insofar as GNU components such as GCC and Emacs helped to create it. Individual parts of GNU were cloned from existing Unixes anyway, so those parts could have been taken from other areas. Linux is not defined by GNU, it simply includes large portions of it for the mutual benefit of both projects. Most all free software projects make use of GNU code in this way, but you don't go around saying "development of Inkscape started in 1983 with the GNU project..." Chris Cunningham 14:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I gave the intro yet another stab. It actually appears to have worked out pretty nicely. Chris Cunningham 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reordering (again)

Far too many subheadings and the sections almost appear to be in random order. I'm jumbling this again. Chris Cunningham 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your work and the intro fighting. Here are my concerns:
The intro read better here: [1]. Reasons are: a) parentheses are ugly; b) the claim "Predominantly known for its use in servers with the popular LAMP application stack" is OR, and not supported by the citation; c) "variants of Linux (known as Linux distributions) are available for use on general desktop computers along with a wider variety of other hardware than any other operating system" is ungrammatical, and once fixed to include "more" is OR (what about NetBSD, which makes pretty much the same claim)?; d) there are really only three kinds of Linux system: embedded, desktop, and server, and "from embedded to supercomputers" is makes it appear that there are zillions more; e) the GNU/Linux term should appear right near the top, and not be referred to as "occasional", however true that may be (it's just trolling otherwise). Basically, I think we should write a decent intro that reflects the entire article fairly, fight over it here, and then replace the main page version.
a) parentheses are necessary. We've had a dozen intro revisions. There doesn't appear to be a way to get enough information out without a compromise here.
I claim that any English sentence with parentheses can be rewritten or split into two such that it doesn't need the parentheses.
Rewrite it, then. Chris Cunningham 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I did. Chris Pickett 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I see a list of ten different unrelated free software projects managed to insert itself again. Linux's TCP/IP support isn't an external project, to pick out a factual error amongst the style issues. Chris Cunningham 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Linux is not just the kernel, and not just GNU, and in fact it is composed of many different components, and I listed (what I considered) the major ones. After all, that is what the article goes on to describe. I thought the TCP/IP support was external to the kernel, and in fact originated from BSD, and so included it. Yes, I realize TCP/IP is not presently mentioned in the article. The point is to be pedagogical so that when people ask, "What's Linux?" so that they can get a good idea from the intro. Chris Pickett 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
b) that whole section was lifted, essentially unaltered, from elsewhere in the article.
I mentioned LAMP as a major component. Thanks for drawing my attention to the bad writing. I didn't say it was your fault.
As stated in the summary, this was WIP. Chris Cunningham 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is my major complaint. Why do you need to check in something broken? If you make small changes that don't break things and that other people can review as fairly stable and as you finally intend them to look, it is flat out better. Consider that if you make small changes localized in time and space such that if some asshole like me doesn't like your work then it isn't a major problem for anyone. It is a constant uphill battle to decrease the entropy of articles, and just "reordering" the lot because it presently makes you confused doesn't mean it will confuse anybody else less. Chris Pickett 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've had very little to do with how this article has progressed in some time. I don't consider moving three or four paragraphs in a 70k article to be particularly-heavy lifting. All today's work was reverted at once, for my crime of going to do something else for two hours. This article cannot be fixed incrementally without looking wrong for at least some of the time. The solution is to discuss changes as they're made, not just revert. Chris Cunningham 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the article needs a messy-looking period. I think the solution is to (make your best efforts to) make changes that uncontestedly leave things looking better than when you started, not some tradeoff of good things for bad things. Yes, it's harder. Entropy is always increasing without input of energy. Chris Pickett 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
c) the NetBSD claim is fanboy bullshit. Linux has been ported to more architectures than there are NetBSD fans. It isn't ungrmmatical, it just needs some commas.
Fine, I have no idea. I just think the intro was over the top. I mentioned the high portability.
It probably was, but it should be toned down rather than put back. "from cell phones to supercomputers" is a powerful concept, and conveys the scope of the portability well IMO. Chris Cunningham 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it fine now? Chris Pickett 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You've separated it back into your own "three systems" ontology, which is by no means settled. The ubiquity of Linux is a major reason for its success, and it's being downplayed. Chris Cunningham 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
So change it to something like "from tiny embedded systems to massive supercomputers" if you like. Chris Pickett 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The OS we're talking about doesn't run on "tiny embedded systems". The kernel does, and that's discussed in Embedded Linux, but the unix-like OS of this article doesn't. Or "tiny" should be defined. But in general, I prefer the range "from x to y" description than the three categories description. Gronky 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I prefer just listing things than having a range (a range over what, exactly? I proposed adding tiny and massive to make it clear that's what the range was, but I still don't like it very much), so please feel free to add major categories. There are some very Unix-like embedded OSes, and some that are really not so Unix-like, but unfortunately everybody just refers to them as "Linux" and that term is what this article needs to describe. I don't think we should be adjudicators of Unix-likeness. Yes, I know, it is tricky. Please browse through the fairly comprehensive reference I provided to embedded Linux further up the talk page and you will see what I am talking about. Chris Pickett 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
You keep saying that some things are difficult - don't worry, we know that. I don't think anyone who's adverse to difficult things would get involved in a mess like this in the first place :-) About feeling free to add major categories: this is not a change that I support, so whether I'm free to do it or not is unimportant. About embedded systems and people using the name "Linux" for them - people might, but this article is not about "Everything that people call 'Linux'", this article is about the unix-like OS that includes Linux (and GNU etc.). Gronky 21:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
d) no, there are "zillions". "Embedded" is not one market. Neither is "server". Hell, if "desktop" was one market there'd be no DistroWatch.
Yes, but saying "from A to B" is really just more over-the-top-ness. My point was simply that there are 3 broad classes of Linux system.
And my point is that there isn't. Where does OLPC fit? OpenMoko? Gaming systems? Deep Blue? Chris Cunningham 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
OLPC: desktop. OpenMoko: embedded. Gaming systems: desktop. Deep Blue: server. Chris Pickett 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I would hope you would realise that this amply demonstrates that three categories does not present a particularly clear picture. Chris Cunningham 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's broad, definitely, but I don't really see anything contestable. If you meant the PS3 by "Gaming systems" then I would still say it was "desktop" Linux, but if you meant a console that used Linux as its primary OS I would say that was an "embedded" Linux. Deep blue is a computation server, although apparently I'm wrong about that according to mainframe and supercomputer and server. I just like things to be organized and not to leave the reader guessing. Chris Pickett 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
e) no it shouldn't. It is an occasional term, and its importance shouldn't be artificially inflated in the pursuit of compromise (there's never going to be an acceptable compromise for some people). Gronky's change to "some people" is a good idea and should be kept. Chris Cunningham 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I put "less commonly" and introduced it straight away. Some people? Which people?
"some people" isn't really as homogeneous a bloc as Talk:Linux makes them out to be. The following section elaborates anyway. Chris Cunningham 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but "some" isn't clear unless you specify which people. I think less commonly is fine and neutral without giving too much weight. Chris Pickett 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
See WP:EWW for when to say "some people". "Less commonly" is worse because it's fuzzier - not only does it not saw who uses the term or how common or uncommon it is, the reader could also interpret it as saying that each user of the OS calls it Linux or less commonly GNU/Linux. In reality, certain people almost always call it Linux, and certain people almost always call it GNU/Linux (or GNU+Linux). So "some people" is more accurate here. Gronky 20:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. And the GNU section elaborates on "which people". Chris Cunningham 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I changed it to sometimes. Chris Pickett 20:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
"Some people" use that name (all or most of the time). It's incorrect to say that all (or most) people use that name "sometimes". Gronky 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
On (a), it could be re-grammared. "X happened (leading to Y)" can be rewritten as "X happened, leading to Y". No comment on (b). On (c) I think you're right that GNU+Linux runs on more systems than NetBSD, so we should just add a citation. On (d) I agree with you here - rather than there being three types, there is a range (which some could sort into three categories if that was necessary for some reason). On (e) I agree with Chris Pickett. Gronky 19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the reordering of the history section. It was presented in chronological order previously, and I believe that is the most important part. I think the "GNU/Linux" and "Pronunciation" subsections can nicely go into History, but not under the heading "Linux and the GNU project" but rather just "Naming" (and be merged into one).
I don't like the new "Development" section. The source code composition and development cost of Linux is chiefly a historical consideration. Talking about support for programmers that want to develop applications in the same section doesn't really make much sense. It would be like including a source code / development cost analysis of Windows and then talking about VB and MSVC and all of the programming environments for Windows in the same section.
I just don't agree with either of these assertions. The status quo is at least as bad. Chris Cunningham 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, propose something better then.
That's what I was trying to do. Chris Cunningham 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagreed that it was obviously better and so reverted you. Chris Pickett 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to create a new "Intellectual Property" section I think that could be good, and discuss the various copyright, trademark, and patent issues in therein.
This may be a good idea, yes. Chris Cunningham 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Market Share and Updake should be a full section with Community and Commercialization subsections. I would prefer if the section were simply renamed to "Adoption" and left in the History section as a summary of the "Linux adoption" daughter article.
It wasn't actually finished. It'd be nice to be given more than two hours to make edits before having the whole thing reverted next time. Chris Cunningham 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, you made a flurry of edits, the article was a mess, and I fixed it. If you make small consistent changes and think of the main page as a fairly "stable" version I would be happier.
Reordering the See also section is fine (in fact, I think that per the MoS guidelines we should integrate the links in that section into the article, where appropriate, and then proceed to delete it altogether), but combining Notes and References is not.
We shouldn't need un-referenced links in there. It was integrated in order to encourage people to either find places to directly reference them, or remove them.
Sure, but combining Notes and References is not ok, so that's why it got clobbered.
The point is to eliminate the "notes". It's the whole reason for doing it. Chris Cunningham 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Making things a mess so that other people are "inspired" to clean them up is not IMO a good idea. Propose the cleanup or better yet just actually do it. I think you mean you want to eliminate the "References" section and rename "Notes" to "References" or something, which is fine, if the references are obviously detritus. Chris Pickett 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This was exactly what the idea was. I'm curious to know why you reverted changes before actually asking why they were done. Chris Cunningham 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Because it looked ugly. Did you see how you left it? If you had spent all your time instead checking that all of the references sucked and just deleting the section outright it would have been better, and an obvious improvement across the board. Chris Pickett 20:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I see the GNU/FSF references got deleted from the extlinks section, I think that's good, but I also think the kernel link should go, since this article isn't really that much about the kernel.
Nevertheless, kernel.org is still the "home" of Linux. Linus doesn't really distinguish between the kernel and the OS. Chris Cunningham 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that is your POV, and Linus is not a particularly neutral source. Most people who just use "Linux" couldn't give a damn about the Linux kernel. I claim that that page is highly unfriendly to the average Linux user. (Just as most people couldn't give a damn about GNU.)
Look, the kernel is the only part of the whole OS which cannot, can-not, be swapped out without making it not-Linux. There is a very definite claim that the kernel has pre-eminence here even if a majority of people think KDE and OpenOffice "is" Linux or whatever.
Fine, I agree, and the opening sentence makes that point. But pointing people to the Linux kernel page when they want to learn more about the operating system? Anyway, whatever, it's just an extlink. Chris Pickett 20:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I do think the article needs work, in particular it needs to be shrunken down. In my opinion, the first thing that should happen is the Distribution section should be summarized in one paragraph, and the content then merged into the "Linux distribution" daughter article. However, I don't think that scattershot approaches that try to take care of the entire article at once are the way to approach this. It's better to make a small change every day or so and then give other people time to respond to it. I happen to think the ordering of the article subsections is fairly good, although I would like to see the interface and applications sections moved upwards. Chris Pickett 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I find this an extremely odd comment, given your own editing history on the article, and the fact that you just unilaterally reverted the whole thing before commenting on it. I've got other things to do just now, but I plan on putting this afternoon's edits back in later on. Chris Cunningham 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I made a bunch of changes over a month's time, slowly, paragraph-by-paragraph and day-by-day. Look, I agree the article needs work, but when you make a whole ton of major and more importantly incomplete changes at once it leaves the article worse for the wear. Chris Pickett 19:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't find the exact point that I wanted to reply to, but someone suggested that we rewrite the article here and then move the new version to the article page. I want to say that I disagree. Article development should be done on the article page. Otherwise, when we're "finished" writing the article here (will we ever be? Does this article ever get into state where people agree it's "ready"?) we will just have all the arguments all over again when it is moved to the actual article page. I think changes should be made sentence by sentence, not in big blocks. Gronky 20:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who said that but you're right, and I just went ahead and edited the intro to the article. I don't think sentence-by-sentence nitpicking is always beneficial, sometimes it is better just to rewrite an entire section from scratch, and sometimes rearranging sections can also be beneficial, but I agree insofar as there shouldn't be any major changes that are either hard to follow because they address more than one major issue at a time, or left incomplete. I actually find that sentence-level rewrites often make things worse because they break up the flow of the entire section. Chris Pickett 20:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're suggestion here is more correct. The important thing is to address one issue at a time (not necessarily one sentence at a time). And I think this thread proves it. Such a big change has thrown discussion into chaos - and the complexity and messiness of this thread is probably making others not want to get involved. Gronky 20:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In your revert, you also clobbered the work being done on the intro. I'll restore that. Gronky 18:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I know. Please consider what I wrote in my first point above. Chris Pickett 18:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux and GNU

The connections between Linux and the GNU project are not merely a matter of naming, but rather a matter of shared history and distribution.

Linux is essentially always accompanied by GNU software, and GNU software's most common distribution path is via Linux distributions. Linux uses a GNU copyright license. Many of the same people are involved in both projects; and there is a general sense of connection between the two. Several Linux distributions, such as Debian GNU/Linux, identify as GNU systems. When Red Hat, at the time the largest Linux vendor, acquired Cygnus Solutions (aka "Cygnus, Your GNU Support"), it became the employer of many of the core GNU developers.

These commonalities and relationships between Linux and GNU are much more important, and much more worthy of being described, than Stallman's "GNU/Linux" outbreaks of flamage. --FOo 19:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just a strange one. GNU basically died (and was reborn in the more general sense of free software for the masses) with The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Free software has succeeded beyond Stallman's wildest dreams, and it's free software rather than GNU which Linux is at the heart of. There's no sense any more (if there ever was one) that free software has to be GNU in any sense to be acceptable.
Regardless, if you feel there's something missing from the way certain parties or concepts are represented in the article, please provide specific examples. Chris Cunningham 19:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
GNU basically died at some point? When? Where did you get that from? FSF has been receiving donations and paying programmers, and GNU has had constant volunteer programmers since 1985 and 1983, respectively, non-stop until today. Gronky 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but GNU is no longer the driving force behind free software development, if it ever was, and there's little or no emphasis on having GNU approval from the wider community. Even such FSF bastions as GCC are largely hacked on by external companies for their own use, with long-term forks being commonplace. Chris Cunningham 20:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I have plenty of answers and questions for what you've said, but it seems we've veered off-topic and are no longer discussing the future of the article. Or if I'm wrong, just point out the change you're advocating or objecting to. Gronky 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Un-cited references

Chris Cunningham 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What sections of the article do these pertain to? Thanks. --Michelleem 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That's what we're trying to find out :) They were originally dumped in the References section without accompanying <ref> tags in the article. It may be that no text currently in the article makes use of these reference sources, so I've removed them for now and placed them here for the editing community to try to match with statements. Chris Cunningham 15:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro reorganised

I still don't like the laundry list, but I trust the editing style was easier to pick through this time. Chris Cunningham 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was much easier to follow. Thanks. I'm actually going to try and stop editing completely (without a silly banner on my user page reminding me of that fact) because I have software and papers and finally a thesis to write that are much more pressing needs in my life than editing Wikipedia. But have fun with this article! (I guess that means you won't have me reverting you.) I think in terms of breadth it's quite close to FA status, but in terms of length some parts definitely need to be diverted elsewhere. Cheers, Chris Pickett 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
To everyone else: where do we go from here? I suggest abandoning the above discussion in the "Reordering (again)" section - it's just impossible to see where the latest comments are and it's even hard to find the bit you want to reply to when in the edit box. What do we think of starting a new sections, and maybe slowing down the pace, at least until Monday. Thoughts? Gronky 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually, whatever about the rest of yous, I'm going to stop editing for tonight, and I'll try to take it easy or not edit this article at all for the weekend too. But I'll be back, fresh, on Monday, so don't get carried away :-) Gronky 23:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straightforward download links

None of the external links for Linux provide straightforward downloads for the current x86 version of the operating system. Will somebody provide a link to a downloadable disk image of Linux on them so I can try out the operating system on a virtualization suite or dump onto a LiveDistro, because I don't want links to source downloads. --PlayStation 69 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.linux.org/dist/ ¦ Reisio 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minix section

Given that the allegations aren't true, there's scant evidence, and nobody notable has made the accusation, is this section really necessary? We're already pushing on for space here without going off on contentious tangents. Chris Cunningham 10:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The section is currently completely incoherent. I'd be glad to get rid of it. I haven't yet done that, because I think it might be useful to mention Minix as a source of inspiration or whatever it was. I don't think I've read anything about it in the rest of the article, apart from the pronounciation quote. --MarSch 10:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It was added as a single edit by an anonymous user. I think it was parachuted in from somewhere else. --Alvestrand 00:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

Are there any criticisms of Linux or is it perfect? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.186.52.155 (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Linux is perfect. But leaving this aside having "Criticisms" section in any article is brain-dead, positive and negative issues should be listed organic inside the article where they have a meaning and in the sections they belong, not in a separate POV and troll attracting section. -- AdrianTM 03:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More naming ambiguity

The name Linux is in itself always ambiguous. Example: Say you call my Gentoo/GNOME/Linux (kernel) system Linux (OS). Then I replace Linux (kernel) by the FreeBSD kernel. It remains exactly the same system (quantitatively, 95% of the code remains the same, and to an observer it looks and behaves exactly the same where it's relevant [after all, this is a OS article and not a kernel article]), but you can't call the system Linux (OS) anymore, because there is no Linux (kernel) in it. So is Gentoo "Linux" (OS) or not? Both yes and no. The same argument could be applied to Debian.

Do you call Debian "Linux"? Do you call Gentoo "Linux"? Say that we want there to be no ambiguity, so let's just call them Free Operating Systems. Then let's call Ubuntu Linux, since officially it only comes with the Linux kernel. But by this reasoning, the day Ubuntu gets a version with the Solaris kernel, it will cease being "Linux". If all distributions that are now called Linux distributions offer additional kernels as options, won't they cease being Linux distributions? Or will they be called something like "Hurd/Linux/Solaris/FreeBSD" distributions?

The article focuses on desktop operating systems, yet likely more Linux instances are used on embedded systems to which most of the article is completely irrelevant.

I personally think that this article may be harmful in an encyclopedia, due to the inherent ambiguity. Personally I would: 1. offer the disambiguation page by default; 2. make Linux the article about the kernel; 3. add a link in the disambiguation page to Free Operating System (or something similar, mostly a copy of the present Linux page) and explain how linux colloquially means a Free OS with Linux as the kernel; 4. Remove the Linux as an OS article.

I'm not sure if I've been clear or neutral enough in expressing my opinion, but I've done my best. I believe that this is an important problem that will need to be addressed and that the present situation is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. --80.53.99.202 23:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with you. Ambiguity is all over, and the reason for it is that the whole wodge of free Unix-like software is, by and large, incredibly interoperable. It's reasonable to conceive of taking a "Linux system" and just replacing the kernel (and core libraries) with BSD or Solaris parts. And the question of whether that system thus magically becomes something essentially different, seems to me to be a basically incoherent question.
The commonalities and interoperability among free Unix-like systems are no accident. They represent deliberate cross-fertilization and conscious striving for compatibility. They represent multiple projects choosing to use the same components, either for "best-of-breed" reasons, or shared concerns, or deliberate choice to be compatible. They represent efforts at standardization across projects -- starting back with POSIX and continuing today with (e.g.) freedesktop.org.
This overwhelming compatibility makes essentialism an absurd position to take regarding free Unix systems. It's just incoherent to suggest that replacing one component gives you a wholly, utterly different system.
A much stronger conception, I think, is to regard the name "Linux" the way the lawyers do -- as a brand name. It isn't an essentialist statement; it isn't saying that replacing a kernel makes the system entirely different. It's just a label applied by those who are licensed to do so, on software that happens to meet certain criteria ... notably, including the Linux kernel and not some other. --FOo 04:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
That's why there should be only "Linux (kernel)" and "Linux distributions" articles. But saying that replacing Linux kernel with any other kernel you still have "basically Linux" is moronic. KDE is not Linux, nor X server. We talk about them in this page because Linux distributions usually include those elements, but those elements are not "Linux". Think about what elements you can remove from a system and still be able to call it Linux, I can very well remove KDE and still say "I run Linux" I can very well remove X server and still "run Linux", however you can't remove the kernel and still "run Linux". KDE, for example, is just as "Linux software" as Firefox is "Windows software", it's just an application that can run on different OSes (KDE can run on Mac OS X as far as I know). However if you want to discuss about Linux distributions and about the usability of the whole system talking about KDE makes sense. If people don't get basic things like these I only hope they will restrain from editing technical articles on Wikipedia. -- AdrianTM 05:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linux's Original Non-Free License

I think the following should be changed "Torvalds originally created the Linux kernel as a non-commercial replacement for the Minix kernel;[10] he later changed his original non-free license to the GPLv2, which differed primarily in that it also allowed for commercial redistribution." The original license to Linux was free as in beer and that's how most people think of free. I think it should be changed to reflect this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.30.221.68 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

I think it shouldn't. Note that this whole article is about "Linux, the most prominent example of free software". Whatever "most people think of free", this is the one article where the difference matters. 80.233.255.7 00:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There are two reasons I think this shouldn't matter. While Linux is licensed under a free software license I believe Linus considers himself as more of an open source advocate rather than a free software advocate, hence his criticism of GPL v3. Secondly, this article won't necessarily be read by those who are familiar with the intricacies of free software licenses and it should be accessible to as many people as possible. It's a small change the article to make it less ambiguous just put in "non-commercial" instead of "non-free". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.30.221.68 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
I must have misunderstood. I figured your point was to down-play significance of free software in general. I agree that "non-free" is confusing in combination with "non-commercial". I do think that it needs to be pointed out that the original licence was not a free software licence, though.
Linus' or anyone else's own opinion in this matter doesn't have much weight. This isn't a soap box. 80.233.255.7 00:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What constitute freedom is debatable, non-free is even more confusing... To make it clear and accurate why not say exactly (in principle, not every detail) what's the difference between the two licenses.-- AdrianTM 07:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot "free" / "non-free" are POV, there's no standard in the entire world for freedom, no measurement unit either... -- AdrianTM 07:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
All that needs to be said is that the original licence prohibited commercial redistribution. It's little more than a footnote, given the comparative length of time that the kernel was under said licence. Chris Cunningham 08:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not all. See my rant about non-free Minix (the whole discussion, actually) a month ago. 80.233.255.7 09:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Chris. -- AdrianTM 13:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Could somebody please explain to me how Linux's original license was not free? According to the cited article (with a footnote next to the statement that it was "non-free"):
“ As an example, Torvalds then cites his own, self-made, original Linux source license, which basically said: "Give all source back, and never charge any money". It took me a few months, but I realized that the 'never charge any money' part was just asinine. It wasn't the point. The point was always "give back in kind".

...

So, from Torvalds' viewpoint, "And that's what the GPLv2 is. It's 'fair.' It asks everybody -- regardless of circumstance -- for the same thing. It asks for the effort that was put into improving the software to be given back to the common good. You can use the end result any way you want (and if you want to use it for 'bad' things, be my guest), but we ask the same exact thing of everybody -- give your modifications back."

 ”
So, if it does not allow charging money, asks for modifications back, and does not restrict anyone, how is it not free? As I see it, it was both free as in beer and free as in speech. Or are there some other uncited sources? Thanks, ---AM088 (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Free software has an official definition, so it's not really subject to interpretation. (By the way, so does open-source software.) Software is free if its users have freedom (not obligation) to run, study, modify, redistribute the software and freedom to release their modifications to the software. Nowhere does the definition say "must redistribute for free" and "must release their modifications". Free software can be distributed for a fee and free software permits making changes privately without ever releasing them. 80.233.255.7 00:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, to clarify, "non-free" is actually short for "non-free software". 80.233.255.7 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think we are interested in your (or RMS') POV about free software? -- AdrianTM 01:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This license does not qualify as free software either by the FSF's definition or Debian's definition (the DFSG), nor does it qualify as open source by OSI's definition. It would be very misleading for the article to call it "free software", since that is not how the phrase "free software" is used in other Wikipedia articles. — A.M. 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Give me one good reason to not call you a troll, Adrian. Why don't you go right ahead and nominate every single article in Category:Free software for deletion? Hey, I guess I and Stallman have accomplished the impossible in "pushing" our "POV", haven't we? 80.233.255.7 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to provide to somebody who signs with and IP address any justification that I'm not a troll. As for Category:Free software I'm not sure how people put things into that category and what criteria they use. However, I know there's a good principle in Wikipedia not to bring references from other Wikipedia articles so your point is moot. -- AdrianTM 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
"it does not allow charging money [...] and does not restrict anyone" It does restrict anyone; it restricts anyone from charging money. That's why it is non-free. — A.M. 06:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If you use this logic you can say that GPL v3 will be non-free because it will not allow vendors to do whatever they want with their hardware. This I think makes my point free/non-free is not clear and POVish, we should explain what the license says not what the license "is". -- AdrianTM 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As expected NPOV vs Windows

Lots of sources cite Linux as being providing as good a desktop environment as Windows, but a possibly equal amount don't, which is an omitted fact. The Linux desktop may be better, but saying this doesn't conform to NPOV.

Do you have a source for your claim that "a possibly equal amount don't"? Without a reliable source, your claim is merely your opinion and as such is inadmissible here. --FOo 05:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comparison with windows

The section on comparison with windows isn't very good. Unfortunately the main article it links to isn't much better. Therefore I think the section should be removed. --MarSch 18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. The current article is a complete mess, and has been for months. Chris Cunningham 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/n/Talk%7ELinux_b843.html"