Talk:History of Linux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Linux article.
Article policies
This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in January 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] A note

This page is a partial derivative of this translation effort. So if you know some German you can help this article by helping to translate that one.Mike92591 02:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some copy editing

I have made some changes including quite a few links, and also changed some of the wording, which might have come through the translation process in the German word order. Maybe the copyedit tag can be removed now, but I'll leave it for someone with a bit more of an eye for detail to do. Peashy 13:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a few more changes, hope you all like them. FWIW IMO that tag can come off.Tanaats 21:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:LoCE I'm removing the copyedit tag and placing the article on the proofreading queue. Tanaats 22:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proofread complete

I did the proofread, added the badge, and will take this article off the "to be proofread" list. I think some questions about the article remain, including a need for better referencing. For example, the quote at the end of the "The name Linux" section has no reference, though I assume it's from Torvalds's book.

This is my first attempt knocking off an article from the proofread list; please make additional changes as necessary, and please contact me (my talk page, etc.) with any feedback. Thanks. —Beverson 21:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I was thinking it would be helpful to change the title of this to "History of the Linux kernel" to make it more clear, because it's only a history of the kernel, and not the whole Linux (or GNU/Linux) operating system. Guyjohnston 13:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Linux is the correct name for this subject. Let's don't irritate the masses more than they already are. -- mms 01:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's supposed to be about the whole operating system (that is if we are to translate it) therefor "History of the Linux" is the correct name.Mike92591 20:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Errr, huh? No, it's not. What gave you that idea? Back it goes. Chris Cunningham 20:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Look at the first topic (the word "this" is a link). Mike92591 01:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplication, and future work

The GNU stuff is irrelevant to the kernel history. Let's keep this kernel-specific.

Things I'd like to see added as the article progresses:

  • Initial external contributions
  • Minix fallout
  • First industry patches

I'd also like to see this cover the complete kernel history. As this was originally split out from another article it really only covers the early history of the kernel. By expanding it we could remove a lot of listcruft from Linux kernel. Chris Cunningham 12:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy Editing

I put the copy-edit tag back on -- there are still some German(?) words and funny word orders. I think several people should read the article and try to correct it as much as possible; especially, any person who knows enough German(?) to translate the words which are left. Goldsmitharmy 08:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

There seems to be quite a lot of confusion between the kernel 'Linux' and the complete operating system 'Linux' or 'GNU/Linux' on this page. It seems that it's supposed to be about the whole operating system, judging from the German article. I don't speak German, so I can't help with the translation, but I'll start doing some copy editing, and try to get rid of some of the confusion. It also looks like quite a lot of this history is repeated on the main Linux page, so a lot of that should probably be removed and just appear on this page. Guyjohnston 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Linux is obsolete

The first para of this section under the heading Criticism is gobbelajook. Don't know enough to fix it.--Shtove 20:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Through some looking around I found that gobbelajook means the excessive use of jargon to make others seem inferior. I can see what your saying although, I don't think it was done to make anyone seem inferior. I'll try to fix it up a little. Mike92591 20:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking of Baldrick in the TV show Blackadder - the way he used to pronounce gobbledegook (however you spell it). I didn't mean to say the wording of this article is jargon, or that it makes 'others seem inferior' - the words as translated just don't read with a clear meaning. This para is not the only one with this problem. I understand that WP editors in English are trying their best with a German article when they don't have a great grasp of German. But isn't there an issue about piecemeal (half-arsed) translation in this way? The German should be put in for Wikipedia:Requests for translation, especially since the history of Linux is so important for an understanding of how Wikipedia etc have flourished.--Shtove 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It has actually been in Wikipedia:Requests for translation for a while now. You are certainly right about the quality of the translation, it's bad.Mike92591 00:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] German text in the timeline

Someone who can properly translate the German(?) towards the end of the timeline should probably do so. Thanks :) Lavid 21:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)lavid

[edit] Version history?

Needs the version history. I only found out today that Linux had gone straight from 0.03 to 0.10 - David Gerard 18:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-history

The pre-history section is good. The environment that the kernel was born into, and the situations that lead to it being launched (and it being possible i.e. gcc) are absolutely worth a mention. I'll re-add it and review the content. --Gronky 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No actual justification there. The "filled a niche" angle is pure FSF propaganda; Linux wasn't meant to "fill a gap in GNU", as clearly indicated by Torvalds's distinction between Linux and GNU in his release mail. BSD is no more relevant to the discussion than the music scene of the time is. Discussion of those FSF products that Torvalds used (GCC, bash, whatever) is pertinent, as is discussion of Minix, as is discussion of the emergence of the 386/486 as a cheap, ubiquitous 32-bit workstation platform. All of these things would be great additions. Minor copyedits to Stallman essays are not. Chris Cunningham 00:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I sick of your stupid disregard. Before you claim that I'm some propagandist for the FSF why don't you put your stupid thought against what you know rather than just shitting stuff out of your head. Don't act as thought an agreement has been reached just because you wrote something and you think you're right. Also, I really don't give 2 shits about the FSF and, if anything those paragraph make the GNU project and Berkeley look like crap because they failed to provide a useful free kernel. All it is saying is why Linux became popular. It never says(or means) "it filled a gap in GNU" it means there wasn't anything like it and it was something people wanted. Mike92591 13:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The "critical gap" thing is straight off the GNU website. I'm going to work on this anyway, only because I've been swayed by this most mature of all hissy-fits. Chris Cunningham 11:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Where? And you still screwed this up! Mike92591 12:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I mean in spirit, not literally. Anyway, I've added some more neutral text now; will work on this more later. Chris Cunningham 12:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Then why didn't you say that you twit. And stop screwing this up. Mike92591 19:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing with that. Suffice to say it hasn't convinced me that the contentious sections need to be reverted, and if the page needs to be fully protected until some mature debate emerges on the issue then so be it. Chris Cunningham 19:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Thumperward, when you don't listen to anyone and just repeatedly impose your view on articles by spending more time on Wikipedia than anyone else, you can't expect anyone to have any faith in the community process. You have rendered "mature debate" pointless. --Gronky 21:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This "thumperward is a Wikipedia despot because he edits more than most" argument might work if there were reasonable belief that my editing opportunities short-circuited debate, but seeing as I myself just had this article locked for five days for the purpose of having a discussion about it I'd say that it's more likely that it's just another excuse to attempt to discredit me. Put up a reasonable argument and we'll see what happens. Chris Cunningham 22:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You had it locked to your version. I don't know why you think that proves your good faith. I've explained already why it's a waste of time to "put up a reasonable argument" - you don't listen. You just use your weight of contributions to impose your preference. --Gronky 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh noes! m:The Wrong Version! You've been a substantial editor to WP's free software articles for far too long for this innocent ignorance schtick to work. I'm tired of it, and I'm going to publicise your tactics every time you try it. Use real arguments. Chris Cunningham 22:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand Thumperward's reasoning. He doesn't think that BSD's failures have an important impacted on Linux. He thinks that certain things are just "rubbish" or "POV"(using it as an adjective) when they aren't. He just decided to move this from "History of Linux" to "History of the Linux kernel" for what ever reason. He thinks I'm some propagandist (because it apparently wasn't enough to say he disagrees and it's okay for him to make up stuff when it benefits him). He doesn't even understand his own comments and definitely doesn't understand others. He is just stupid. Also, don't give Gronky this BS about real arguments you retard. Mike92591 22:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Sticks and stones. I'm about a thousand times less likely to have permanently lost any goodwill on the project than you after this. Take it to another section and we can talk. For nwo, I imagine articles will keep getting protected at m:The Wrong Version while you try to circumvent policy. Chris Cunningham 23:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't have much to do with the page so I'll assume you're done. Mike92591 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
(unindenting) So this was reverted again. Points of obvious contention:
  1. The comment about future additions was removed.
  2. There's stuff about BSD, which is only relevant to Linux insofar as Torvalds's quote that he wouldn't have bothered if GNU had been finished and at one time there was a plan for GNU to use the BSD kernel. This is a pretty weak link, all things considered.
  3. The last paragraph of the added material has some problems. Firstly, "in the early 1990" isn't grammatical. The "even" in "Linux Torvalds has even said" is unnecessary and amateurish. And coming as it is after the Minix section, it looks misplaced. If we're going to use the quote, we should attach it to the GNU bit.
  4. The criticism sections are unnecessary. Samizdat is given undue weight because it's bunk which didn't gain any particular media traction, and Microsoft's problem was with the OS as a whole and not the kernel. The relevant bits would be better on Linux than in here.
Going to start changing this in a bit. Chris Cunningham 07:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messed up page move

This should be fixed shortly. I don't actually disagree with the move, though of course it would have been nice if it had been discussed recently. Chris Cunningham 10:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Argh. We've lost the page history. Left a message for the offending janitor to restore it. Chris Cunningham 08:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I performed a history merge. Is everything ok now? Kusma (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Competition of Microsoft

I've just posted a message to Mike29591, asking him to fix the following errors that slipped into the "Competition of Microsoft" paragraph he seems to have added last October 18th:

  • Most members of the Linux Community took however left [incomprehensible] and stichelten [foreign word] the topic with jokes...
  • Among other things the magazine [which magazine?] did not publish LinuxUser, a completely seriously meant review of Windows XP under the points of criticism of a typical Linux distribution [unclear passage].
  • In the context of the Virtualisierung [foreign word] was agreed upon to improve the exchange from Office documents and to simplify the Virtualisierung [foreign word] of the Enterprise solutions in each case under the competition product as well as the integration of Linux and Windows machines into a common directory structure to simplify [incomprehensible sentence].
  • The patent protection planned at the same time that customers of an offerer for the use its software of in each case different the offerer may not be sued because of infringement of a patent. This patent protection was expanded also since non-commercial free software developers. The straight last step harvested also criticism, since it included only non-commercial developers with.[This entire passage seems to have been produced by automatic translation software: the syntax is faulty and the sentences are incomprehensible].

- Redeyed Treefrog (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The following sentence from the last paragraph of "Competition from Microsoft" doesn't make any sense to me.

"In the context of the virtualization was agreed upon to improve the exchange from Office documents and to simplify the Virtualization of the Enterprise solutions in each case under the competition product as well as the integration of Linux and Windows machines into a common directory structure to simplify."

Could someone figure out what it means and fix it? PhoenixofMT (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)