Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

Relevant Slashdot thread on GNU/Linux FAQ

This is an important link as readers can refer to a wide variety of opinions from the community. [1] Chris Pickett 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We already link to a Slashdot thread on this topic...does this really add much new? —Steven G. Johnson 07:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
(It seems to me that Slashdot ceased to represent a broad cross-section of the Linux-using community a long time ago...) —Steven G. Johnson
The thread I found was a direct response to the GNU/Linux FAQ right after it was posted. I actually think it's worth having an introduction that talks about the FAQ, and then links to the Slashdot response to it, as well as any direct response mailing list threads with prominent commentators. Regardless of whether Slashdot represents a broad cross-section or not (I'm inclined to agree with you; you don't see a lot of posts from hackers there, importantly), the sheer number of comments means that just about every argument for/against is brought up, and that it is probably quite useful to a reader. There are many posts that specifically address the different parts of the FAQ, which is why I think it should be included. I would say the GNU/Linux FAQ represents an even less broad cross-section, but obviously it's important here... Chris Pickett 08:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The GNU/Linux FAQ does not represent a cross-section, nor do we present it as such. It represents the opinions of one prominent commentator: the FSF. (Why do you think we need an section specifically addressing the FAQ, as opposed to simply quoting/citing it when it says something relevant? Are there substantial arguments in the FAQ that we don't address?)
I think the FAQ is worth referring to properly because it is the key position paper of RMS and the FSF.
We have to be cautious about online forums of self-selected posters. As a gauge of public opinion, such forums are notoriously unreliable. As a source of information, the same could be said. Is it really helpful to readers to direct them to postings by a bunch of random people of no particular notability, many of whom might be misinformed, in a forum (Slashdot) notorious for flaming one-liners and off-the cuff thoughtless posting (since Slashdot moderation tends to reward earlier posters)? On the other hand, we already link one Slashdot thread, so I suppose we might as well link both at the same time. —Steven G. Johnson 08:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I do agree with you about the Slashdot mentality. Nevertheless, it's an interesting read; individually, these people may not be notable, but 1040 comments is more than any other single discussion on the subject that you'll find on the internet. Chris Pickett 08:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added the link. In what way do we not refer to the FAQ properly? —Steven G. Johnson 08:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
"The complete position of RMS and the FSF is detailed in the GNU/Linux FAQ.<ref>...</ref> This lead to a direct response from the Slashdot readership.<ref>...</ref>" I have to go to bed, but it's been nice chatting with you. I'd actually just like to make some edits to the article (I don't really believe it would survive an FA review), but I'm focusing on Linux right now. I also have a lot of work to do these days, that is way more thesis-completion important than editing WP, so it's pretty unlikely that I will get to it. In fact, I don't even really know what I'm doing here right now, I guess it's just nice to find somebody coherent and moderately even-tempered. If I disappear, at least this all got recorded on this discussion page. Take care, Chris Pickett 09:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say the primary position of RMS is laid out in his essay "Linux and the GNU system"; the FAQ is a supplement.
Linking to a response by Slashdot readers under further reading is one thing. I don't think we should reference it in the text of the article. It's simply not a reputable source by any stretch of the imagination. Imagine a historian asking, "Who is anonymous coward and why should I care what she says?" —Steven G. Johnson 09:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that everything should get a full reference---do you write papers with "Further reading" sections? If you count anthropologists as historians, then sure, I can imagine that. I can already imagine anthropologists trying learn about common people based on fairly anonymous wikipedia edits... Chris Pickett 09:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

New arguments from Larry McVoy

"GNU" includes X and TeX as well, and also Hurd should really be Linux/Hurd. [2] Chris Pickett 03:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That argument is already noted in the article, and illustrated with a (much more eloquently phrased) quote from Jim Gettys. —Steven G. Johnson 07:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
IMO that argument is different. He says two things in that post: 1) GNU shouldn't get credit for X and TeX just by lumping them in as official parts of the GNU project. 2) Since the Hurd kernel uses Linux drivers, it's hypocritical not to call it Linux/Hurd. Chris Pickett 08:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Already addressed in the article: "Many users and vendors who prefer the name Linux point to the inclusion of non-GNU, non-kernel tools such as the Apache HTTP Server, the X Window System or the K Desktop Environment in end-user operating systems based on the Linux kernel." Of course, we can keep adding things to the list, like TeX, but I don't think it adds to the point, do you? On the other hand, it certainly wouldn't hurt to add more citations, like the McAvoy post, to this sentence to give examples of prominent adherents of this sort of opinion. See also here and here.
The FSF's argument counter-argument is also quoted: that the name of the "primary" contribution should come first, and that they have no objection to adding more names afterwards but that at some point it has to be truncated for practicality. Of course, the FSF think that the GNU part is primary, and some others think that the Linux kernel is primary, and some (like Gettys) argue that it doesn't matter anymore.
—Steven G. Johnson 08:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not the point. The argument is that GNU itself actually officially includes things the FSF did not write, but the FSF still calls them GNU and takes credit for them. GNU doesn't officially include KDE or Apache but it does officially include X and TeX. And I think the Linux/Hurd argument is interesting as well (and I did not know about it either). Chris Pickett 08:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It's no different. The FSF does not claim that X11 or TeX are produced by the GNU project. It uses them as part of what they consider to be a GNU system. The FSF also uses the Linux kernel as part of what they consider to be a GNU system, but does not claim that the kernel is a GNU project. In both cases, it says that the GNU name should come first, but has no objection to calling it GNU/Linux/X11 or whatever. Whether you agree with this argument is another matter, of course.
Regarding the relationship between the Hurd and the Linux kernel, doubtless they would argue that the Hurd is the primary component, hence the name. Note that the Hurd also uses Mach, which was made at CMU (although there is talk of switching to L4). Do we really want to get into the composition of the Hurd here, though? If we go into the Hurd, after all, should we also talk about the zillions of other FLOSS software that incorporates bits and pieces from other programs? This is not an article about the naming of software in general... —Steven G. Johnson 08:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Violates 1a for being too complicated, 1d for putting gnu/linux first, 1e because it is a long time since 2004 and the article has changed greatly, and all of 2 (2a,2b,2c). I tried to nominate the article anonymously twice and failed so registered, but I don't know how to fix it. Qwertydvorak 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

  1. The [sic] thing doesn't seem to be appropriate, given that the article has the word spelled properly...
    No, "miniscule" is a misspelling of "minuscule". Since the misspelling is Linus's rather than that of the article, the [sic] is precisely appropriate. --Trovatore 19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Still far too many quotes.
  3. If the LOC review isn't formal enough to be used as a real source it shouldn't be used at all; we shouldn't be trying to discredit it with editorial commentary.

Chris Cunningham 08:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia guideline on "too many quotes"? Given the nature of the article's title, the quantity and quality of the quotes seems to be acceptable for this particular article. If an article were about Abraham Lincoln and simply threw in a bunch of random (but witty) quotes from his speeches and conversations, then such an article would probably deemed sloppy. However, this is an article about a particular "controversy", and all of the quotes pertain to aspects regarding that one controversy. It seems that whenever some editors try to paraphrase within this article, then other editors come in and accuse them of bias (See also Lame edit wars, which shows behavior to avoid); this is why it is best to quote the sentences exactly so that there is no ambiguity about what was actually said.
GrapeJuice 08:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be an official policy on it, but the current article is egrecious (I can't think of an article which uses more quotes: over half of the article's text is in blockquote tags). Just because the topic is a silly he-said-she-said spat doesn't mean it needs to liberally quote from every actor's arguments. The easiest way to avoid people whining about people being misrepresented is to err on the side of caution as regards what gets included; this article is probably too long, given the simplicity of most of the arguments, and appears to have gotten that way due to an inclusionist arms race where rival editors went looking for as many prominent free software personalities as possible to quote.
But yeah. I seriously can't fathom disputing the amount of quotes where over 50% of the article is quoted. Chris Cunningham 09:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Please add comments to the FAR. Qwertydvorak 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that quote percentage policy is what is needed to resolve this. Information has to be relevent, and I'm seeing quotes that are either completely irrelevent or have irrelevent sentences. Those, and those parts, can be deleted. Gronky 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Guidelines or not, surely everyone must admit that the present article has an insane number of quotes (compare with the number of quotes in some of the WP:FA). It must be possible to express the same points using prose and selections from these quotes. The current form seems terribly unencylopedic. NicM 23:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
The fact that there are disagreements about wording does not seem a good reason to compromise on making it a good article. NicM 23:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
Unfortunately I don't think there's a way to avoid that (at least not a good way). An article about a controversy can only summarize the talking points and present relevant quotes... what else can it do? Maybe we can eliminate irrelevant or not so notable quotes, but I'm pretty sure some people will be offended if their favorite quote is removed and they will claim that the quote is highly relevant and notable... -- AdrianTM 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Use smaller quotes, paraphrase, summarise, the same thing all the other articles, even those on contentious subjects, seem to manage. NicM 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
I think many of these quotes could be inlined as part of descriptive text without too much trouble. Having seventeen boxed quotes seperated by very little text just looks and reads as ridiculous. NicM 11:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Fallacious arguments

I'll start off saying that I am "pro-GNU", if anything. That said, I'll add that I think that the sole pragmatism reason is enough to use "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux". Any name is good, and Linux is just more widespread, and easier to pronounce.

However, I have to point out that some so-called "reasons" pro-Linux are just logical fallacies. I'll proceed to mention them:

  1. "Richard Stallman himself had argued against a previous clause in the original BSD License, which required that any advertising [...] must display an acknowledgement of authorship [...]. Stallman [...] dubbed it an "obnoxious advertising clause". [...] Terry Hancock has used Stallman's campaign against the old BSD credit-in-advertising clause as an argument against Stallman's campaign for credit in the form of "GNU/Linux"". This is an ignoratio elenchi. The argument would support removing any "pro GNU/Linux" clause from the GPL, which is not the subject. Stallman never included a clause in any license, asking that anyone be compulsorily mentioned when discussing a piece of software under that license.
    • Asking people ad nauseum to do so "by their own will" is also obnoxious (and I've seen many instances on Talk:Linux page) -- AdrianTM 14:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, then it settles the issue: certainly the name "Linux" should be used, because GNU zealots ask for using "GNU/Linux" in an obnoxious way, for example in this very page. No, really, I get your point. And of course, this makes Terry Hancock right in his accusation. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 09:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
        • (by the way, since you are such fan of fallacious arguments, haven't you just used a straw man argument?) -- AdrianTM 14:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
          • No, it was sarcasm. I was ridiculing the position that someone trolling with his/her pro-GNU ideas somehow supports using "Linux" as a name for the OS, which your words seemed to imply. I know that you didn't mean that, Adrian. We share more views than the thread seems to indicate. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 20:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
        • No, it doesn't prove anything, it's just obnoxious behavior. It's also obnoxious because Stallman himself doesn't seem to understand what "free" means which is kind of strange. If somebody releases code as free there's no requirement for using the name or anything for propaganda for people who take that code, if you keep asking them insistently to do that it become really obnoxious. I can take the GNU code and build whatever toy I want, if my toy becomes well known it's obnoxious from Stallman to come and ask people to call my toy -- GNU/toy... I thought the code was free, right? It seems like it came with some strings (and trolls) attached to it. -- AdrianTM 14:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Again, it was sarcasm. It is not the point if Stallman has the "right" to ask people to call the OS "GNU/Linux", but rather if the name is correct. You might as well say that two plus two makes five, and the freedom of speech would prevent me from accusing you in court. But I could keep telling you that you are wrong (using my freedom of speech, in turn), with no erosion to your freedom to say "2+2=5" (unless I stalked and harassed you, which Stallman is not doing). The free software would not be "free" if Stallman had added a clause in the GPL to legally enforce using this or that name (see my first point in the list). This hasn't happened. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 20:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. "Some people object that the name "Linux" should be used to refer only to the kernel, not the entire operating system. This claim is a proxy for an underlying territorial dispute; people who insist on the term GNU/Linux want the FSF to get most of the credit for Linux because [Stallman] and friends wrote many of its user-level tools." This sentence affirms the consequent: if pro-GNU/Linuxers wanted most of the credit, they'd ask for the name "GNU/Linux". They do, therefore they want most of the credit.
    • Using "GNU/Linux" is clearly and openly explained by Stallman as a tool of propaganda about free software. -- AdrianTM 21:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Another ignoratio elenchi, now by you. What you "prove" is that what Stallman wants with the name "GNU/Linux" is "propaganda about free software", not "all praise the mighty FSF". You might call him an hypocrite, though. But what you can not do is say that he himself "accepted" that accusation. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 09:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • So reading is not your strong suit, where did I say (or implied) he is an hypocrite? He is very straight forward about promoting a POV, a hypocrite would not be so open about it. -- AdrianTM 13:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I'd like to have your reading skills, but I seem not to be worthy of such a heavenly gift. For example, I am unable to see where I accused you of saying Stallman is an hypocrite. What I said is the following: Stallman said that X was bad (clause in BSD license) then that Y was good (promoting the use of "GNU/Linux"). Terry Hancock said that Y == X, and therefore Stallman has a double speech. I proved that Y is not X, and therefore Hancock is wrong. It is nor ruled out that Stallman means X when he says Y, but then he'd be obscuring what he means (hence being an hypocrite), because Y is not X. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 09:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. "Neither this theory nor the term GNU/Linux has gained more than minority acceptance." This is an argumentum ad populum: since a lot of people believe it, it must be correct (or, since no-one supports it, it must be wrong).
    • Hmmm, I think you don't understand what argumentum ad populum is exactly, here we don't determine which name is "correct" there is no such thing as "correct name" here we determine which name is more used and thus preferable to use in Wikipedia, how to explain this... it's like in an election, if the criterion is "ad populum" you can't say that's a fallacy by using it. In an election we don't determine the "right" candidate by giving him/her more votes, same here by saying that Linux is more used than GNU/Linux we don't claim that's the "correct name" we merely use a criterion to determine which one to use, the popularity is the criterion -- how is that a fallacy, please explain. -- AdrianTM 21:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with most of what you say, but I didn't misunderstand the point of pro-Linux/pro-GNU sections. You did. The sections clearly read "Arguments for X". A valid argument could be the first sentence: ""Linux" is by far the most widespread name, and most people therefore simply adopt this usage, while references to the naming controversy appear only infrequently in mainstream sources." This is the argument you mention, and the one I say above that I abide by: most people use it, and things should be called what people call them (although the second part goes implied, instead of stating it explicitly). But beyond this point, any mention to popularity is redundancy, and ignoratio elenchi: giving arguments to support something that is not the point (in this case, because it has already been accepted, or at least argued: that Linux is more widely used). — isilanes (talk|contribs) 09:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. "Well, I think it's justified [...] if you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux [...] but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think is just ridiculous." This is a mild attempt at appealing to ridicule, and presents a bare opinion (Linus's) as proof, therefore appealing to authority.
    • That's called expressing an opinion people can agree that's ridiculous or can't disagree, I personally agree. -- AdrianTM 21:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You agree, but I don't see your opinion quoted. Maybe because your opinion is not interesting for the reader. How is that of Linus any more interesting? It isn't. Individual opinions, however relevant the person stating them, are irrelevant as arguments (unless we are arguing whether person P's opinion is O or not). I could see Linus's opinion quoted if it where a poll. It is not. It is a section labeled "Arguments for Linux". — isilanes (talk|contribs) 09:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • My opinion is not quoted because I'm not notable, Linus is in this context, that's one of the principle of Wikipedia to quote notable people -- and no, it's not "appealing to authority", just relevant quote from relevant people. -- AdrianTM 14:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Unfortunately, the section is not What relevant people say about the subject. It rather reads Arguments for Linux, which conveys the idea that... well... that arguments are given. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 09:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Wikipeidia itself doesn't provide arguments, I thought you knew that, it provides the arguments of the notable people (no matter if arguments are bad or good), you can rename those sections as "Arguments for Linux (or GNU/Linux) by notable people" or something like that if you think that makes it clearer. -- AdrianTM 14:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. "Perhaps RMS is frustrated because Linus got the glory for what RMS wanted to do." Cheap ad hominem. Stallman being frustrated (even if it were true) is irrelevant for the discussed topic.
  5. "Umm, this discussion has gone on quite long enough [...] Personally, I'll very much continue to call it "Linux"" Another appeal to authority. We are not interested in Linus's opinion, but rather in this reasons to think like that. These are not given, rendering the quote irrelevant.
    • Again you make the mistake to think that a name is determined in a scientific way. No, pretty much a name is the one used by people and the name given by the person who created the thing, I agree that Linus opinion is irrelevant since we don't talk about the kernel, but if we talk about Linux distribution most of them use "Linux" (again see my explanation about "ad populum") -- AdrianTM 21:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Again, you make the mistake of thinking that random quotes are arguments. This is not a poll, this is a compilation of arguments. The real argument is: Things should be called what most people call them (major premise). Most people call the OS "Linux" (minor premise) Therefore, it should be called "Linux" (conclusion). These random quotations could be used, if at all, to defend the minor premise. But this is not challenged. We all accept that "Linux" is more widely used. In any case, the major premise is being challenged (because maybe there is a "correct" name, and it should be used, despite common usage. I don't support this, I just quote it). As such, ad populum arguments are (I repeat myself) ignoratio elenchi (they support what is not being chalenged). — isilanes (talk|contribs) 09:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I partially agree, I don't like the structure of the page, however those quotes should stay because it's what notable people said about the issue. (Again using "notable" sources is a Wikipedia principle not an "appeal to authority argument") ... but let me add if we add the real argument it would be plain original research that's against WP, that's why we need to quote what notable people said about the issue even if they are illogical or not good arguments in themselves -- AdrianTM 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Now we are reaching somewhere. We should build a consensus from that point. For example, your answer to my third point is more logical than most of what is said in the very article. Unfortunately, if Torvalds or Stallman say something stupid, it is a notable quote. If you and I say something sound, it's original research :^( — isilanes (talk|contribs) 09:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Yep Wikipedia is not a place for original research it's a place where we quote relevant sources about different issues. For example is not our job to determine how important is the kernel is in an OS or to determine how a name should be determined, what we can do is quote linguists about name usage and quote computer science people about kernel and its importance, in addition we can quote people who are directly implicated in the issue: Linus, RMS, etc, and we can show what is the usage of the terms. -- AdrianTM 14:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. "Others have suggested that, regardless of the merits, Stallman's persistence in what sometimes seems a lost cause makes him and GNU look bad." This is an appeal to consequences, because it does not deal with the correctness or truthfulness of the (pro-GNU/Linux) claim, but rather disregards it because accepting it would have undesirable effects (GNU "looking bad").
    • I don't think is a lost case for Stallman (unfortunately) -- AdrianTM 21:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It remains to be discussed if the article should give actual arguments, or just parrot the opinion of relevant people. I'd say the former, unless these "arguments" are placed into a section labeled "What Linux supporters say", instead of "Arguments for Linux". — isilanes (talk|contribs) 18:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So, do you think is better to rename those sections: "Arguments made for GNU/Linux" and "Arguments made for Linux" -- in the idea that it would more clear that those are the arguments made by various people and not the "arguments of Wikipedia", I would say that's self-understood, but from your post it looks like it isn't always. -- AdrianTM 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I see your point, so that maybe it is implicitly correct as it is now, you are right. However, I would prefer dropping the word "argument" completely for cases like this one, when mere opinions and sayings are quoted. I agree that Wikipedia must refer to notable material, as the quotations by the people quoted in this article. But, Wikipedia should label opinions as opinions, and arguments as arguments. Having the two "camps" expose their ideas equally (with selected quotations) is fair. Trying to give the same balanced weight to an alleged list of pro and con (rational?) arguments is not. Since we Wikipedians can not judge for the latter, we should stick for the former. I'd therefore propose the following section titles: Arguments for GNU/Linux and Silly things Torvalds and his fanboys say, hehehe. Just kidding. How about (X= "GNU/Linux","Linux"): Pro X case, Case for X, Defense of X, Support of X, What supporters of X say, Pro X opinions, Opinions supporting X. Maybe even make a single section entitled something like Opinions of people on the subject, including all. After all, the quotations should self-explain if they are pro or con. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 11:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • All mixed together would be bad, I used "Opinions supporting __" but I'm not sure if this is the best choice, I'll let somebody else decide. -- AdrianTM 12:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

... And 6 months later, I see that nothing came of this discussion. I am removing the comparison with BSD advertising clause for two reasons:

  1. The situation is not at all analogous. BSD advertising clause is a legal obligation. Stallman's insistence that his supporters call the free operating system GNU/Linux is just that---insistence. He is not going to sue anyone for calling the OS by the name of the kernel, and, as mentioned in the sourced Free Software Magazine article (er, down in the comment), he has not put any "advertising clause" in the GPL 3.1 (or something) yet.
  2. Who the hell is Terry Hancock? He is not at all notable in the FOSS movement, and why should what he says in the comments of a Free Software Magazine article actually supporting the use of the term "GNU/Linux" matter more than, say, comment of an Anonymous Coward on the Slashdot? This citation is especially bad because that gives the impression that Free Software Magazine supports the use of term "Linux" to cover the free operating system, when the exact opposite is the case.

The cited source is invalid, and the statement is controversial. The paragraph goes. Please find a better source before you add it back in. novakyu (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)