Talk:Linux/Archive 10

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 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 →

Contents

Artistic/Linux

I demand that people start using the term Artistic/Linux since most of the major distributions includes Perl, which is as you know under the Artistic License.

The "GNU" bit in GNU/Linux is refering to the large contribution of code from the GNU and not the license. Lots of Perl are dual licensed anyway (Artistic and GPL). I demand that some user stops demanding what anyone calls Linux and demand that they create a user account and login, furthermore I demand that this is enough demands. Ttiotsw 08:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

As of 2006, no proof of SCO's claims of copied code in Linux has been provided.

SCO have indeed shown evidence that Linux infringes SCO's copyright's. Whether or not Linux users accept that, or believe it to be true, is irrelevant.

The atricle 'suggests' SCO is simply making these things up, however they HAVE supplied physical evidence.

Views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.149.145 (talk • contribs)

They've supplied 'evidence'. 'Proof' is much more than evidence, and all third parties including the courts have rejected this evidence as proof. It probably warrants re-wording, but they have not provided proof. —Centrx→talk • 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Developing world

Linux needs to aid the developing world more in learning and using computers. With developing countries using computers for the first time and also using Linux, there will be a much greater market share increase of Linux. Thus, Linux distros need to make sure they support multiple languages coherently and efficiently. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.111.218.254 (talk) 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

What does this have to do with out article? --Gwern (contribs) 23:49 9 December 2006 (GMT)
I have no clue, beside I thing there's to much asked from Linux, Linux is a kernel, at most a operating system, it's a little bit too much to ask from it to alleviate world inequity and help the poor. -- AdrianTM 05:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

External links

Is it really a good thing to link to Linux.org in the external resources on Linux? The website provides often outdated information (sometimes a few years old!) and can confuse lots of users. I think it would be much better to link to a webpage like GetGNULinux.org, which explains Linux is simple words. So, I would vote for removing the link to Linux.org and replace it with a more comprehensive website, or at least remove the second link (Linux Online). -- michux

I don't agree. First of all that site that you want to promote doesn't even get the name right of the operating system. I would never promote such site anywhere, even less on an encyclopedia. -- AdrianTM 13:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean with the name? Thei interchangeably call it Linux and GNU/Linux. It's a common practice. Also in Wikipedia. Anyway, my goal was not to promote this single website but to start a discussion about the external links in Linux article. Linux.org is by no means a valuable resource. It's outdated and full of ads (gambling ads, and stuff like that). At least when compared to GetGNULinux.org which is clean and on-topic. Still, I think we should have a list of all valuable GNU/Linux resources and have some kind of poll which ones are the most appropriate to link to at the time being. -- michux 11:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Remember, Wikipedia isn't a link farm. If it gets to the stage where people are arguing over which third party links to promotelink to, we should simply remove them all, and link only to the official linux sites and a dmoz listing.-Localzuk(talk) 12:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User-friendly?

  • 'Linux and other free software projects have been frequently criticized for not going far enough to ensure ease of use'
  • I have searched on Google for mentions of Linux not being user-friendly. But most of them were older ones, coming even from as early as 1998. Should I delete this statement labelling it as 'outdated'? Some (including me) even believe that for some tasks, Linux is more user friendly than Windows. [1] Freedom to share 17:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe just mention that Linux has improved on user-friendliness and it is no longer as much of an issue as it used to be. --AlexOvShaolin 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think if anything is introduced about userfriendly issue it should be very specific about Linux not about some feature that lacks in GNOME but is present in KDE or some feature that's absent in Fluxbox but is present in both KDE and GNOME. It also shouldn't be about installing because there are many ready-to-use Linux machines that can be bought, so that's a false issue. And of course, it shouldn't be original research, this kind of issues attract trolls like honey attracts bears, I'm sure there will be enough trolls that will say "but I tried to use Linux and it didn't work" or "my obscure_piece_of_hardware doesn't work in Linux" -- not very relevant into an encylopedia... -- AdrianTM 17:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moreover, "user-friendly" and "windows-like" should not be confused. Many ex-Windows users expect GNU/Linux to behave basically like MS Windows, and blame the resulting frustration on unfriendliness of GNU/Linux. Such users would think the exact opposite (Windows being the unfriendly one) had they made the transition on the other direction. Isilanes 18:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that user friendliness of Linux is not a black-and-white issue. In some areas, it is clearly better than Windows or even Mac OS X: configurability, support for all kinds of cpu architectures, developer-friendliness (developers are users too), package management (big plus here), availability of completely floss systems, lack of need for reboots, support communities like the Gentoo forums and linuxquestions.org and #ubuntu and #debian, etc. etc. (I could go on forever.) At the same time, there are many valid criticisms, such as crap and/or difficult to configure driver support for common peripherals (e.g. Wacom tablets, ipods, etc.), (regardless of the fact that these drivers are open source, the user doesn't care about that), lack of a pdf reader that can read every pdf document as well as acroread (although yes, you can just use acroread), problems playing back dvd's and compressed video files, difficulties working in a corporate environment where 95% of the other machines on the network are Windows machines (essentially interoperability concerns), laptop support (acpi sleep anybody?), etc. etc. (I could go on forever.) So basically, I think that you'll find citable sources arguing both for and against Linux usability or "user-friendliness" without it constituting original research, and that simply trying to claim one or the other in this article is not good. (Currently the article reads that, "This stereotype has been dispelled in recent years.") Chris Pickett 20:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes but you see, that's not valid for all Linux variants available out there (there are machines that are already configured with Linux and ACPI works just fine and nobody has to pull their hair to make modem or Wifi card work on those... so I don't think this would be a general problem) Also I just plugged my iPod and it worked fine, I don't know about what problems with configuring Linux for iPod you refer to. And it also a problem that I would interpret the other way round if a device doesn't work it's because that device doesn't support Linux not because Linux doesn't support that device, if you see what I mean... -- AdrianTM 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The point was simply that in certain circumstances Linux is more user-friendly than other operating systems, and in other circumstances it is less user-friendly. Your iPod might work, but iTunes doesn't, and most people who buy an iPod expect that it will "just work" with iTunes. (Not being able to run iTunes under Linux counts as your iPod not working with iTunes under Linux.) Yes, you can install Wine and then iTunes, but I'd argue that doing so isn't exactly user-friendly. I think presenting Linux as "not having any problems with user friendliness" is disingenuous, in exactly the same way as it's disingenous to say that about OS X or Windows or any other operating system. I personally think it has gotten to the point where the positive examples of Linux's ease-of-use outweigh the negative examples, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't both be given fair treatment. Chris Pickett 22:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I fail to understand your logic, how is Linux not userfriendly because Apple doesn't offer a iTunes version for Linux? That's like complaining that your Diesel car cannot run with gas. I don't have any problem with my iPod in Amarok it works perfect and it was recognized from the first plugging in, actually I think Amarok is more userfriendly than iTunes, for example you can copy music from iPod to computer in Linux, iTunes doesn't let you do that (i'd call software like that very unfriendly). -- AdrianTM 04:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you purchase videos and music and games from the iTMS and install them on your iPod using Amarok? No. Is it Apple's fault? Yes. Does the end user care whose fault it is? No. These are all things that a user has a reasonable expectation of doing when they buy an iPod, and they might come away saying, "Linux sucks, it doesn't work with my iPod." At the same time, other users might say, "Wow, I can actually access the filesystem on my iPod if I use Linux!" All I'm saying is that the article should present a NPOV and identify where Linux is good in terms of user-friendliness and where it is not so good. In fact, having just reread the existing section, I think it paints a picture that is too negative overall. Identifying the different contributors to "user-friendliness" and then discussing where Linux is good and bad in each area would be a start. Chris Pickett 05:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Is anywhere in the article mentioned that Linux doesn't run natively Windows programs? I think that should take care of that item. iTunes is a Windows+Mac program it's not Linux problem that Apple didn't release a version for Linux and it certainly is not user-friendly related. Again, it's like complaining that your diesel VW is not userfriendly because your gas station next to your house sells only gas. Yes, it's inconvenient, but the issue is not user-friendliness. -- AdrianTM 03:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Adrian. It seems to me that you aren't really reading what I'm writing. Nowhere in my last response to you did I write the word iTunes. I wrote iTMS, but you can substitute another games/music/podcast/video service in there if you know of one. The point is not that you can't run iTunes, but that you can't do everything with your iPod under Linux that you can do with your iPod under OS X or Windows. Now, let's assume you could, for the sake of argument. I just have to turn around to find another piece of hardware that isn't fully compatible. For example, my Wacom Graphire 4 tablet. Or the ACPI sleep on my laptop. Or my wireless card (a lucent/agere/orinoco, it suddenly stopped working under Debian (testing) and Ubuntu (stable) after 5 years of rock-solid performance). Now, if you want to say, "The user must purchase a 100% Linux compatible device in order for them to expect user-friendliness," then I'll respond with, "It's not very user-friendly if less than 0.1% of the devices sold are branded as 100% Linux compatible." Now, all of this said, I already think the article is too negative (see my previous response), and I'm not really interested in arguing the negative aspects anymore. Chris Pickett 10:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The question is: should an Operating System support iTMS or iTMS should support the Operating System? When Windows didn't have iTunes client and people could not fully use iPods with Windows (yes, there was such a time) it didn't mean that Windows was less userfriendly, it just meant that Apple didn't support Windows at that time, same for Linux, if Apple decides (probably they won't do it, but it's not theoretically impossible) to support it then it wouldn't mean that Linux becomes userfriendly instantly because of that. I think you confuse concepts, "userfriendly" is a different concept from "software compatibility" accross platforms. -- AdrianTM 16:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
My answer to your question is probably that iTMS should support the OS, but perhaps the OS should be responsible for providing the same services in a different manner. However, the end user doesn't care who provides the support. And yes, I believe that software compatability contributes greatly to user friendliness. (The same goes for any kind of compatability: hardware, online service, file format, etc.) Chris Pickett 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What services is Linux missing that iTMS doesn't work on it? I still think that user-friendly is a different issue than software compatibility, getting back to my car example: user-friendly is about how easy is to turn the wheel and how accessible are the commands located, how many buttons you have and how many levels you need to pull to start the car and the like, it's not about where you find diesel stations. Yes, having a diesel station close to your home makes your total car experience better, but it's an external factor, it's not the user-friendliness of the car. If you claim that your car should have an adaptor to make it use gas along with diesel I think you are misdirected. -- AdrianTM 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, first of all, I don't think the car analogy works: gas != diesel, and you only need one or the other to run your car, but all computers are capable of reading 1's and 0's, and in many cases a user will want to cherry-pick which programs/file formats/devices they use. Second, to be clear, I equate user-friendliness with usability and ease-of-use. Third, I think software compatibility is a part of user-friendliness, but it isn't everything. I definitely agree with you that interface usability is also a huge part of user-friendliness. However, let's take the Wine project. It attempts to make it so that Windows programs can run under Linux. Due to Wine, users stuck with Windows programs can use those programs under Linux. When a Linux system makes running programs under Wine easy, this is seen as being "friendly" to the user. In the same way, it is friendly to the user if they can use proprietary ATI and NVidia kernel modules to get the most out of their graphics cards. Neither of these are perfect solutions, but to the end user who wants to use the machine now, today, they are better than nothing. Hence, they both improve the user-friendliness of the system, or "Linux" as a whole. However, you could also claim that a Windows system is more user-friendly when it comes to running Windows programs; after all, it's the native format. Thus my claim above that because you can run iTunes under Windows natively, this is more user-friendly than having to run it under Wine in Linux. Similarly, because ATI and NVidia keep their drivers up-to-date and supported much better under Windows, you could also claim that for the end-user, it's easier to deal with these things under Windows, and Windows is more user-friendly in that respect. When you add everything together, I happen to think that Windows is less user-friendly than Linux, but that doesn't mean Linux is better all of the time.
Basically, my opinion is that there are many different contributors to user-friendliness, as per my original post in this thread, and that it isn't just about the interface of the system. Linux excels in some areas, but it is lacking in others. The same can be said for any operating system. Indeed, the section of the main page we are talking about addresses several of these things (go and read it), but it focuses too much on the negative aspects. Chris Pickett 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You start from the wrong assumption that Linux should run Mac or Windows programs, that's absurd. Programs are 1 and 0 but that's a little bit more about them. They are not intended to work on a different Operating System just as gas is not supposed to be used in a Diesel car, that's where the analogy works. The fact that there are comptibility layers as WINE or other emulators is a imperfect solution and it's not Linux fault that I-don't-know-what program doesn't work under WINE, by the way, WINE is still considered a beta program it hasn't even reached version 1.0, Linux in general (consider for example most of the popular distros) doesn't even come with WINE preinstalled. -- AdrianTM 21:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm tired of this. You win. Chris Pickett 22:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Good, this is enough material for an entire section about how user-friendly Linux really is. Are we finally going to make such a section (with a huge risk of it breaching NPOV regulations) or are we just going to try not to talk about it anymore? I personally find Ubuntu and all its repositories more user-friendly than Windows XP, yet I also believe that we have not yet managed to define user-friendliness, yet alone talk about what it really is. I agree that driver problems and lack of program compatibility count as user-unfriendliness, but what about using Linux once it was all configured (as in, your shell scripts have been written and drivers installed), usually found in environments such as schools. I also feel that we seem to be confusing user-friendliness with admin-friendliness. Do we want to talk about user-friendliness in terms of how intuitive the GUI's are and how easy it is to write and edit documents, browse the web and send e-mails or how hard it is to install a system using a text-based install on a processor architecture that is not supported vert well? While the answer may be in between those two, the installation and configuration only take a few days. The use of the system itself can take a few years. Also, is the fact that Linux is not as popular as Windows and therefore not supported that well an issue of user-friendliness? Are we looking through the eyes of a lazy user who cannot be bothered to search the web looking for drivers or are we looking at it in an unbiased (NPOV) manner, looking at what programs are included and how their usability and UIs affect the productivity of the user compared to other programs installed by default on systems such as Mac OS X? Also, what distribution would we compare other OS's against, Ubuntu or another beginner-friendly distribution or something more advanced such as Debian (they only recently added a graphic installer)? Finally, what desktop environment would we use for the comparison? GNOME? KDE? Xfce? Englightenment? There are so many and Linux is so customisable that we should look more at assessing the user-friendliness of individual distributions rather than choose some 'default configuration' and judge Linux based on it? Let us just ignore all the talk about user-friendliness in the main article, as it will make us create POV content. We cannot judge Linux based on GNOME or KDE alone. Neither can we judge it based on Fedora Core or Ubuntu. We should rather focus on finding out how user-friendly the desktop environments or distributions are and not look at the big picture based on a few black (or white) sheep we can find. Why are we looking through the eyes of a user who has to install it on a home laptop and not through those of someone sitting down at a Linux-powered PC at school? Why do we look at Debian and not at Ubuntu? Those are all issues we need to resolve before we are ready to write about it in an encyclopaedia. Freedom to share 14:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • For me user-friendliness and problems with drivers (and many other compatibilities) are two different animals. It is not GNU/Linux's fault that hardware manufacturers sold their soul to Microsoft. It is like complaining to me because they don't allow me in a club that should be open: it is the problem of the owner of the club (h/w manufacturer), not mine. It is not like I refuse to go to that club, but rather they want me out. User-friendliness should relate to how easy it is to send an e-mail, or how many "next-next-finish" are there when installing a piece of software, or how easy it is to switch users, or manage privileges or whatever... Is GNU/Linux lacking in that? — Isilanes 15:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly that is what I was trying to say all along. User-friendliness is not measured in how companies cooperate with that software manufacturer, but how the software performs in everyday situations. Thanks, Freedom to share 17:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC).


I'd just like to add my opinion here if thats alright. I find it difficult to believe that anybody could consider that Linux is as easy to use as Windows. I'm fully aware that many complications occur when a Windows user migrates to Linux, purely because they expect it to act like Windows but surely it's still clear that Linux is simply not designed with beginners in mind to the degree that Windows is. Basic use of Windows at no point that I can think of, requires you to start entering commands, but as soon as you want to start installing anything, thats exactly what you have to do in Linux. You also usually end up installing about a million other little things, just to get one piece of software working, compared to Windows where you just double-click the icon and click 'next'. Granted, Linux came with more pre-installed software, but nobody can live with just that software. Also, all that crap about having to log on as a different user just to access certain parts of the operating system confuses matters further. I could go on, but my point is that Linux simply doesn't baby-sit me like Windows does. Windows tells me what to click when I first install it, it warns me when I do stuff thats risky and it does as much automatically as it can, rather than ask me all sorts of confusing questions that I would rather not answer, because I'm afraid of making the wrong decision. Linux doesn't even have a predefined interface for me, it makes me choose between KDE, Gnome etc etc. I want to download software without worrying about versions, libraries etc. I just want to download it, double-click it and let Linux take care of the rest.
How do you make applications launch when you switch the computer on? In Linux you have to write a script, in Windows you put a shortcut in the startup folder. Which ones easier?
I learnt how to use Windows with the help of Windows, not by constantly asking for help from IRC channels where the people either ignore more or call me a n00b. Until someone designs 'Linux for Retards', Windows will enjoy the majority market share.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Linux hater by any means, I can use both Linux and Windows, but I prefer Windows because operations require less effort and are generally done for me. Sorry for the rant but I wanted to get this off my chest.--Santahul 03:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't need to type anything to install software in Linux; most distributions have come with graphical installation for both the whole system and specific software for years now.
  • Software installation on Linux is generally as easy and quick or easier and quicker than in Windows; if software is included in a distribution, it and all additional required software will install with one command or button click.
  • You do not need to log-in under a separate name to use any application software. You log-in as root to install software or such things, but if you want you can just use root all the time and be as insecure as Windows is with running Administrator all the time.
etc. etc. —Centrx→talk • 06:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "[...]but my point is that Linux simply doesn't baby-sit me like Windows does.[...]as much automatically as it can, rather than ask me all sorts of confusing questions that I would rather not answer, because I'm afraid of making the wrong decision. Linux doesn't even have a predefined interface for me, it makes me choose between KDE, Gnome etc etc.". So, it all boils down to the fact that you don't want to choose by yourself. Some people would also prefer a totalitarian country were the government gives you the car and house they think best for you, and you make do with it. It certainly takes away the pain of weighting pros and cons of a Ford or a Toyota, doesn't it?. "I can use both Linux and Windows, but I prefer Windows because operations require less effort and are generally done for me." This is simply big fat FUD. For scarcely used tasks, Linux is competitive with Windows (menus, icons, GUIs... all the crap). For moderately repetitive tasks, use of the command line interface, with a shell that remembers the last commands issued, is a pain-reliever. And for heavily repetitive tasks, minimal scripting (one does not need to be a top-notch hacker) puts Linux lightyears ahead of Windows. — Isilanes 19:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • And the fact is, you can get distributions that do baby-sit you, if you want. —Centrx→talk • 02:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reset Indent: People should refer to which distribution of Windows and Linux they are using when making value judgements which obviously cannot apply across all versions of Windows or all Linux distributions. E.g. making the statement "I find that Ubuntu 6.06 is as user friendly as Windows XP Home (Sp2)" has more credibility than a generic statement that "Linux is better than Windows.". As with the myriad of Linux distributions, there is no one version of Windows - Microsoft create many versions (Win98/ME, XP Home, XP Pro, XP Media Center Edition, XP Tablet, XP 64 Xp pro 64, XP Embedded , Fundamentals, XP Starter Edition, Win2k Pro, Win2k Server, Win2k Advanced Server, Server 2003 (about 5 different versions), Vista Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Vista Enterprise, and Vista Ultimate...) plus these are not all available as a retail option but have specific licensing options e.g. Microsoft Multi-language extensions for Windows XP Pro is not available retail but is an OEM applied or Software Assurance enterprise option meaning that a bi-lingual family cannot easily obtain Windows in which multiple languages are supported at once on a machine for the system menus. Most mainstream Linux distributions (e.g. Ubuntu) allow you to add aditional languages and chose which one a user wants at logon. Windows XP Home has no support for multiple languages (of system menus/dialogs etc). Certain Windows versions are limited to which hardware they support e.g. limit on 64 bit, limit on number of CPUs, limit on memory, user limits, or connection limits. These are usually artificially constrained limits for licensing purposes and make the selection of Windows a difficult decision in both deciding on the correct licensing, license compliance and functionality (e.g. look at the feature matrix of [2] ). Anyone who says Windows is "user friendly" hasn't had to sit down and work out the best way forward on licensing a site; this is one area where GNU/Linux is a no-brainer. Ttiotsw 09:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Grand Exalted Linus de Penguin

What is this?! "Meanwhile, in 1991, another kernel was begun as a hobby by Finnish university student The Grand Exalted Linus de Penguin while attending the University of Helsinki". Factually wrong. Can this be corrected to a simple "Linus Torvalds"? --Blowtorch 10:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed now. -SpuriousQ 10:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Contentious issues:

I'm open to changing the following:

  • C++ as system software. It generally isn't, even though there are counterexamples.

We can sort out the ordering afterwards. Chris Cunningham 14:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The kernel and system software fully characterize an operating system. Specifying both in the first sentence is great. Also, a missing link to GNU to further describe the GNU operating system was missing from the intro.
  • The programming language sugested that there were 5 or 6 languages supported, which is incorrect. Also, it suggested that there are many system software written in C++, which is incorrect.

--hdante 16:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Article intro 1

Current wording is:

Linux, or GNU/Linux, refers to any Unix-like computer operating system which uses the Linux kernel

This is accurate. Even if you go the ucLinux route and use non-GNU code for all the surrounding bits, Linus still used GNU code in the kernel. So "or GNU/Linux" is alright, because it isn't actually wrong even if it's distasteful. But add

and the GNU operating system

To the end and it's no longer accurate. It's entirely possible to chop-and-change extra-kernel components for non-GNU versions. The GNU operating system by definition is 100% free software, and in practice under the GNU project's overarching control.

Cue another 16 pages of ranting about three letters. Le sigh. Chris Cunningham 15:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You're arguing for a self-contradiction. You saying "GNU/Linux" is ok as a name (if distastesful, to you), and then you want to argue that "GNU/Linux" doesn't necessarily include any of GNU? GNU/Linux does always include GNU. Gronky 16:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Bah. Once again, slowly. We are arguing about the intro text, which currently says, this article, refers to any, operating system which uses the linux kernel. Now that is correct whether you call the article "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" or "Red Hat" or "Bananas", so long as there's some degree of consensus here. But when you then tack on and the GNU operating system, you're adding a qualifier to what the article applies to. And the consensus over 10+ pages of talk on four or five articles is that this should be as general an article as possible and refer to everything from Ubuntu to iPodLinux. But that qualifier you want to tack on means it doesn't apply to iPodLinux, because iPodLinux doesn't use "the GNU operating system". It doesn't use the GNU tools. If doesn't use the GNU C Library. It isn't GNU. So we'd have to go adding disclaimers everywhere. This goes against consensus and makes the article confusing to read. Chris Cunningham 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling linux an operating system that uses the linux kernel without regard to system software is correct. Calling GNU/Linux an operating system that uses the linux kernel without regard to system software is not only incomplete, but also incorrect. --hdante 16:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The intro is not being endlessly extended due to nitpicking from GNU zealots. It must remain short and clear. If the longer explanation (which has its own bleeding article) is too confusing for the intro it should be omitted. Omission is not negation. The original version is neither wrong nor confusing. Chris Cunningham 18:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was fine before the recent edit war. This article's intro is no place to cover the entire GNU/Linux naming controversy article. ¦ Reisio 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The intro is not being imploded due to revert trolls. The intro must explain what the article is about. If you find a single sentence confusing, try to read it two or three times. --hdante 20:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
anti-GNU zealot. Just because you don't like GNU, don't screw the intro. --hdante 20:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
What's an operating system ? The kernel and system software. If you want to talk about the kernel, then rename the article. If you want to talk about the operating system, then talk about the operating system. Now that the whole article is completely defined in two paragraphs

you want to show to everybody that you dislike the GNU system and because of this, the introduction must be a shrunk fuzzy description of the operating system. The excuse is amazing "oh, let's keep the intro small, 40 bytes is too much, you are a GNU zealot, incomplete information is okay". Please go buy a Playstation and leave the serious work with real people. --hdante 20:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA. And I've just spent thirty minutes editing GNU, my issue is with "zealots", not GNU. Please read some of the archived talk instead of leaping into a highly unproductive revert war (and killing dozens of uncontested edits along the way). Back it goes. It'd be nice if you indented in the same way as all the other nice people, by the way. Chris Cunningham 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice talk over a few time ago, moron. Citing yourself:
The intro is not being endlessly extended due to nitpicking from GNU zealots.
Please read WP:NPA. Zealot. Stop incorrectly reverting the article. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here. Just because you're a revert troll it doesn't mean you can keep incorrections in the article. There's a lot of nice people here. You are not one of them. --hdante 21:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Systems which use little or no GNU software, such as embedded systems, are called Linux but could not be called GNU/Linux. —Centrx→talk • 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It's already explained: the old text, that called everything linux or gnu/linux was _incorrect_. --hdante 21:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
No it wasn't. Please read my original response to Gronky. Chris Cunningham 21:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, Woo another full page of talk on three letters! Yes, Talk:Linux is truly a treasure-trove of interesting discussion. Chris Cunningham 21:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Either this article:
  • Talks interchangeably about linux and gnu/linux as a gnu and linux operating system for the sake of explanation.
  • talks about linux but not gnu/linux as a general linux-based operating system (and optionally describes what gnu/linux is).
The article can't treat linux and gnu/linux as synonyms and then allow a for a ETC/linux system. GNU/linux != ETC/linux. It's plain wrong. It's irrelevant if there were a lot of discussion. It's still incorrect. --hdante 22:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting creating three articles: GNU/Linux, (ETC/)Linux and Linux kernel? Something must be done about it. Freedom to share 21:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Oh yeah, Woo another full page of talk on three letters!" -- Can't agree more with this statement! There's an explanation about GNU and GNU/Linux and a link to GNU/Linux name controversy in this article, what else do you want? Ah, I know, to call the Operating System GNU/Linux. Why? Because you think you are right. Sorry, Wikipedia is not to push your POV and RMS or anybody's agenda, whenever majority of people will call the operating system "GNU/Linux" we'll revert the title, till then even if "incorrect" the title and description will remain like this. End of story. -- AdrianTM 06:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Article intro 2

I'll stick my near decade long Linux and 2 decades of Windows hat on and say this. This article should reflect what the target audience of Wikipedia is expected to understand of the term. They hear of "Linux" used in the press by everyone from friends or foes, Windows salesman , Microsoft executives, politicians, or press, ...... They google for Linux and will probably get Wikipedia in the top 5 hits (it's #5 for me right now). Wikipedia has a good brand name so they click Wikipedia link. 999 times out of a 1000 Linux means a "GNU/Linux" system for them; on average they won't know, care, or understand the dichotomy of a non-GNU based verses a GNU based Linux system. The "Linux kernel" or even "GNU" article can be written in finer detail as they are less heard terms but "Linux" is the generic term same as "Windows" is the generic in the minds of joe-public for that OS (irrespective of what the Microsoft legal department says). The 2-paragraph intro as of [3] when it was protected looks great by me. Looking at the edit history I thus prefer the User:Hdante [4] version rather than the User:Thumperward [5] version for the intoduction paragraph(s) but there are so many other edits it is hard to say if the other parts of what they are editing are also nice to keep or not. We need to slowly pick the bits back. Ttiotsw 09:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • People call it Linux, only trolls that want to promote FSF and a specific political point call it GNU/Linux, that's free advertizing for GNU that's requested by RMS and people that have no clue about what "free software" actually means go for it. (free means that anyone can use the code and do whatever they want with it, including making own product naming it however they want) An encyclopedia should used the term used by people not the term used by a vocal minority that want to promote its own POV and get free advertizing for their concepts (even if those are good). -- AdrianTM 14:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If by "specific political point" you mean "freedom", then I agree. I accept the pragmatism in calling "Linux" the OS, and for me it is fine. However, your liberal use of the concept of "trolling" here is somewhat excesive. The whole point of "Linux vs. Windows" is Linux is better, because it is free, not because it is technically superior (which it also is). Leaving the GNU part out puts the focus in the latter, and neglects the original spirit of the movement that gave rise to the free OS we now know as "Linux". Requesting that "GNU/Linux" is used is in no way "free advertising", or RMS's megalomania. If RMS emphasizes this point is (however difficult people might find believing in sb else's good faith) because he thinks it is better for the free software movement. — Isilanes 15:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I do enjoy freedom and I agree with many points that FSF and RMS make however this is an Encyclopedia that has a NPOV policy, everybody including you and RMS admits that GNU/Linux name was invented exactly to push a POV, untill most of the people and media will use "GNU/Linux" this should not be used in Wikipedia to name Linux OS because it's simply POV pushing. (basically it's irrelevant if the POV has generous principles at its basis.... most of the POVs have generous principles, it's just that Wikipedia is not a place to promote generous principles). -- AdrianTM 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sound reasoning. I think you got the point there, and I can't but agree. — Isilanes 17:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The way people call linux is not being discussed here (well, there are trolls that want to put this up to discussion). It's up to discussion whether the article will explain what it's supposed to or not. More specifically, whether will explain what linux is and what gnu/linux is or not. --hdante 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a link to GNU/linux naming controversy down in the article where it talks about RMS/GNU/FSF which is normal. I don't think it should have a section in the intro that explains what GNU/Linux is because GNU/Linux is a name that RMS wants people to use for Linux, which again is simply POV pushing. -- AdrianTM 17:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Once again, the reason I am opposed to adding a whole extra paragraph to the intro is not because I want to belittle the GNU project but because it is already sufficiently-well explained in the article section entitled "Linux and the GNU project" why there is contention between the Linux and GNU/Linux names. The article introduction is meant to provide a brief overview of the subject as a whole. The GNU issue really is a minor squabble in the scheme of things regardless of one's own POV, and need barely be mentioned in the article introduction. (I don't consider it any more relevant for the casual reader than, say, the monolothic kernel/microkernel argument, which is hugely important to certain members of the community but has little real impact of Linux's real-world use and impact.) Chris Cunningham 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


Answer to AdrianTM: the only two people who started the discussion insulting other people and calling them zealots were you and Chris Cunningham. Citing yourself:

only trolls that want to promote FSF and a specific political point call it GNU/Linux

Anyway, I'll try to answer your demand, even though it has nothing to do with this discussion:

An encyclopedia should used the term used by people not the term used by a vocal minority that want to promote its own POV

Answer: is there anyone here who asked that linux be called gnu/linux ? To make things easy for you, I'll list here the name of everybody who commented on this topic: Chris Cunningham, Gronky, hdante, Reisio, Centrx, Ttiotsw, AdrianTM, Isilanes. Did anybody in this list requested that linux be called a specific way ? No.

I will repeat my answer. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here. We have linux to talk about and gnu/linux to talk about. We have two choices here (since we are talking about a single article):

  • In this article, Linux == GNU/Linux. Then the entity we are dealing about is composed of the linux kernel and gnu system software. We already know this is not the case, because this article deals with linux in the most general sense. Then we have the second option,
  • In this article, Linux != GNU/Linux. Then the entity we are dealing about is composed of the linux kernel only. I still have to say what GNU/Linux is, because GNU/Linux redirects here. This is what an encyclopedia is all about. It explains things. The Linux and GNU/Linux article should explain what they are.

--hdante 17:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Chris Cunningham: the introduction that explains what linux is and gnu/linux is solves the problem immediatelly. Everything is completelly defined and no argument may be done about names.

Anyway, even if you don't agree with saying what GNU/linux is just because this article talks about linux, then think of a person who enters "GNU/Linux" in the search box. Obviously, the person will be frustrated being redirected to a page that doesn't say what GNU/Linux is. This is actually another point besides the most importat one above (that seems to be irrelevant to you). --hdante 17:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

We've already had that discussion on Talk:GNU/Linux. And it doesn't completely explain it; it merely repeats something which is explained in detail in both the article itself and in the naming controversy article. Chris Cunningham 17:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That's what an introduction is for. And I'm not discussing about GNU/Linux redirection here either. --hdante 18:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
So why isn't the microkernel/monolothic kernel argument worthy of mention in the intro? Chris Cunningham 18:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Because microkernel, mach, hurd, and linux kernel don't redirect here. --hdante 18:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

Hey everyone. Normally I work on Windows and OS X articles, including a lot of work on lead sections, making sure there is a balance of information and viewpoints, and generally keeping the articles at a level we can be collectively proud of as an encyclopedia. This recent edit war and subsequent locking is dismaying... I hope you guys can sort out something that will help improve the article. One thing I am absolutely certain of, however, is that the article as it stands right now in its locked status is horrible.

Here's a quick sanity check:

  • A picture of Richard Stallman is not required to communicate the important and relevant facts about Linux. If anything, a GNU logo would make sense... but trying to stuff two pictures plus a diagram into a five-paragraph space is simply not going to work.
  • The way this article characterised GNU/Linux for a long time was sufficient in communicating the point. Spending an entire paragraph on it in lieu of discussing other important aspects of Linux is too much... consider that the WP:LEAD of an article should ably summarise everything that follows in the article, and should be able to stand on its own as a complete description. Have a look at the sections of the article, especially "Usage" and "Pronounciation", and let that guide you to writing a better lead. Don't let one aspect push out others.
  • Please don't edit-war; it's embarassing that our article on Linux had to be fully locked because people aren't playing nice. -/- Warren 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "A picture of Richard Stallman is not required to communicate the important and relevant facts about Linux.". If the number of pictures should be reduced, I propose that that of Torvalds should be first to go. If we are calling "Linux" the OS, it should be so with all consequences. Stallman created the foundation that created the OS, not Torvalds. We can say that Linux is a work of a community... but if we were to give a single person credit for it, it would be Stallman. Giving Torvalds any prevalent position (such as including a picture of him, whereas that of Stallman is omitted) would look like we are talking about the kernel he created, instead of the OS he did not create, and is just named after his kernel. Last time I checked, the GPL certainly allowed one to take sb else's work and change its name (as so happily repeat the non-GNU zealots), but nowhere does it allow to deny attribution. — Isilanes 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. This is quite a little quagmire we've gotten ourselves into, isn't it? It's all about credit where credit is due. RMS/GNU and Linus/Linux are both integral players in the creation of what we all commonly call Linux. My favored solution to the issue is to address (that is to say, explain) the situation in the Linux#Linux_and_the_GNU_Project section. Leave the intro alone. As a matter of popular folk taxonomy it's being called Linux, not GNU/Linux. I say allow that naming convention to stick and make the article informative enough (which is the whole point of this enterprise anyway) to explain the integral part played by the GNU project. -Tjkiesel 20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't care about merits of a picture of rms or linus in an article that talks about linux and not rms or linus. The textual description is correct. --hdante 21:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Article intro - scenario

This discussion is for a simple reason: to correctly define what we are talking about in the intro. I changed the intro, because the article was confusing, and I had to read it a few times before understanding what parts of a linux system it refered to (even though I have 10 years experience with linux).

In this topic I'll post a simple scenario, where some user will learn something wrong after reading wikipedia, if we leave the older introductory text.

The older introduction text said:

Linux, or GNU/Linux, refers to any Unix-like computer operating system which uses the Linux kernel.

Even though the sentence is wrong, since GNU/Linux doesn't refer to some Unix-like computer operating systems which use the linux kernel, the sentence seems to be acceptable by some. Let's ignore this and just think of the following scenario:

  1. User sees the word GNU/Linux somewhere else, for example, in the TV, or in the Internet
  2. User enters Wikipedia home and searches "GNU/Linux"
  3. User is redirected to Linux page, where it's written: Linux, or GNU/Linux, refers to any Unix-like computer operating system which uses the Linux kernel.
  4. User reads the remaining of the page and learns about, say, iPodLinux
  5. User then starts refering to iPodLinux as GNU/Linux

The last step was possible, because of the introduction. The person may call some non-GNU/Linux system described in the page as GNU/Linux. The person, then, has learned something that is wrong in Wikipedia.

--hdante 19:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, let's imagine a similar scenario, with the new split introduction:

Paragraph 1: Linux refers to any Unix-like computer operating system which uses the Linux kernel.
Paragraph 2: GNU/Linux refers to any Unix-like computer operating system which uses the Linux kernel and GNU system software.

Both sentences above are correct (while the previous was wrong). Let's repeat the same scenario for both iPodLinux and Ubuntu linux, for example:

  1. User sees the word GNU/Linux somewhere else, for example, in the TV, or in the Internet
  2. User enters Wikipedia home and searches "GNU/Linux"
  3. User is redirected to Linux page, where it's written the intro that distinguishes linux and gnu/linux
  4. User reads the remaining of the page and learns about iPodLinux (or Ubuntu)
  5. User can't start referring iPodLinux (or Ubuntu) as GNU/Linux. He must find out if iPodLinux (or Ubuntu) is a GNU system. He temporarily calls them "linux". This step has been protected by a correct definition of linux and gnu/linux
  6. Later, he finds out that Ubuntu uses GNU and then then starts refering to Ubuntu as GNU/Linux, but refers to iPodLinux as linux (alternativelly he may call both linux, which is also correct).

In the second scenario, there's no way he could have learned something wrong, because things were defined correctly. It's obvious that he could have called everything bananas. As long as wikipedia doesn't teach him something wrong he can call his system anything. The goal of wikipedia is to teach things, not the other way.

--hdante 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I have a consistent solution but it probably won't work because of the people that I called undiplomatically "trolls". Solution goes like this: GNU/Linux redirects to GNU/Linux naming controversy, have in the intro only "Linux" thus Linux would refer to all the OSes that use Linux kernel disregarding what other subsystems or tools Linux uses (as it is actually used by most of the people and media). Also in the RMS/FSF section explain about RMS request and and explain that would pertain only to Linux versions that use GNU tools and link to the controversy article. -- AdrianTM 19:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Why completely change the GNU/Linux article instead of putting one single extra paragraph in the intro ? Is it so hard ? And also, "GNU/Linux" is not the same as "GNU/Linux naming controversy". GNU/Linux is almost the same as Linux. Only a single paragraph is required to differentiate them. --hdante 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Because calling Linux "GNU/Linux" is POV pushing as I explained. The term itself was invented in order to push POV, nobody can deny that. We can explain it in GNU section (it already is explained there) but if we put it in introduction it would be "undue weight" for a POVish term. -- AdrianTM 20:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether "GNU/Linux" was invented for this or that reason is immaterial. If it where important, then the entry for Superman should be entirely rewritten (or even deleted), on the account that the name "Superman" was invented to sound cool, and hence it is POV. No, the point is whether the use we make of it here is POV. I don't think the actual protected version is "POV pushing", if "GNU/Linux" redirects here, for the reasons given above by Hdante. The actual form nearly-equates (so to speak) Linux and GNU/Linux (something that is not the POV of GNU zealots), but mentioning the (subtle?) differences in a concise manner. — Isilanes 20:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Immaterial? Depends on what example you use, if people would demand other people to call Superman: "WB/Superman" (from Warner Bross) then I think everybody on Wikipedia would laugh in their face, and think about it, it even makes sense in this context, it would differentiate Superman the movie from Superman the cartoons. The fact is that the common name is "Linux" correctly/incorrectly it doesn't matter, using GNU/Linux is POV pushing and however you turn it you can't deny that. -- AdrianTM 00:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is calling linux gnu/linux. Not even in the intro. --hdante 20:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Then why GNU/Linux redirects to Linux? I wouldn't call that "nobody"... - AdrianTM 20:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It goes implied that Hdante means that nobody (editing the "Linux" Wikipedia entry recently, regarding the intro issue, etc. etc.) is trying to "usurp" the name "Linux" and put "GNU/Linux" in its place. But probably you already knew that. — Isilanes 20:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Because linux and gnu/linux are explained in the same article. I have already showed that the original text has a bug. There's not much more to say about this without getting into POV discussions. I'm getting tired. If you want to remember anything I've said, then remember that "the old intro may cause someone to learn something wrong in wikipedia". --hdante 21:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether "GNU/Linux" is a POV name or not is a separate issue from whether "Linux", the kernel, is the same as "Linux" or "GNU/Linux", the full system or distributions, or other systems that use the Linux kernel but do not have or predominantly use GNU tools. I think the long-standing version of the article is much cleaner than the split, current revision, but it did merge the two and did not crisply explain the matter, which can be misleading. —Centrx→talk • 00:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I think is hard to separate the issues completely, we can have a short sentence in GNU section that explains that the name proposed by RMS would not apply to systems that don't use GNU tools and have no reference to GNU/Linux in intro. If we say in introduction that GNU/Linux refers to OSes that contain GNU tools and Linux kernel we basically accept and push the POV of RMS and his adepts.
  • The real problem is that GNU/Linux redirects to Linux and if you talk in Linux page about systems that don't contain GNU tools then there's the problem. No ammount of tweaking in the page and explanation can solve this contradiction. So, we need to either stop GNU/Linux being redirected to Linux or treat in this page only Linux OSes that contain GNU tools which would be kind of strange and limiting. -- AdrianTM 00:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. I would also like to emphasize that the name "GNU/Linux" has nothing to do with the GNU content of a bundled OS, but rather with the movement that gave rise to the existence of an OS that is like Unix, but is not Unix, and, above all, free. Everything we now call "Linux" (including any Linux with no GNU content at all) is most definitely son to that movement to create a free Unix replacement, and is thus as "GNU/Linux" as any other Linux. — Isilanes 14:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for appreciating my point, but I take exception that every piece of free software is "GNU", Linus would be really pissed if you'd call his kernel GNU/Linux. We can talk about GNU and its importance in its section, give credit where credit is due, however, let's not mock with names in order to give credit (besides, that's not our purpose here to give credit)... otherwise how about WB/Superman and Sony/Spiderman? ("faster than a speeding bullet", "It's a bird!", "It's a bullet!", "It's WB/Superman!") Sorry, couldn't resist... -- AdrianTM 15:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Using Linux makes operating system a "prominent example of free software"?

From the article:

Linux refers to any Unix-like computer operating system which uses the Linux kernel. It is one of the most prominent examples of open source development and free software as well as user generated software; its underlying source code is available for anyone to use, modify, and redistribute freely.

This is actually quite tricky. When you refer to Linux as "any Unix-like computer operating system which uses the Linux kernel", you cannot really say that it is "one of the most prominent examples of open source development and free software", because "it" here refers not to the kernel, which could possibly qualify for the statement, but an operating system, which in theory could be a proprietary system with Linux the kernel being the ONLY piece of free software on it (say, an embedded system). 80.233.255.7 02:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually what constitute Linux OS (not only the kernel) is open source, there are rare cases when it uses closed source stuff and that is usually outside of what is typically considered "Operating System" I'm not sure what you mean by embedded system example, since the kernel constitute the OS and that is open source... where is the OS proprietary? I would like to see a clear example when the OS is proprietary (remember, OS != applications), do you mean proprietary drivers? Not sure if drivers could be considered part of OS, if you think about, I don't change my OS if I install a driver for my printer. -- AdrianTM 07:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying "Linux OS" is "not only the kernel" and then go on saying that anything apart from the kernel itself isn't "typically considered operating system"? I'm afraid I don't follow you. 80.233.255.7 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to say that if indeed I said that. What I wanted to say is that some software packages into a distribution might be closed source (for example Opera browser) but that is not part of Operating System (as usually browsers are not considered part of Operating Systems). So I ask you for a clear and notable example of when the Operating System uses closed source parts along with Linux kernel. -- AdrianTM 21:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the subject of this discussion to clarify what is meant in my initial comment. To emphasize: it is in theory possible to have a proprietary system with Linux the kernel being the only piece of free software. Such a system may not exist in practice, but that doesn't invalidate my concern. Therefore, to reiterate, a statement that "an operating system using Linux as the kernel" is "a prominent example of free software" may not be necessarily true. The wording is crucial. Linux the kernel might be such an example, but not the operating system that uses it.
Drifting away from the topic at hand, it is possible to load proprietary kernel modules into Linux. The developers try to maintain a distinction between what is considered "derived work" (and therefore affected by the GPL) and what is not. It can be argued, that by loading such a "binary blob" into kernel the system essentially becomes non-free and no longer "a prominent example of free software". 80.233.255.7 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
What about when SUSE Linux included the proprietary setup utility, YaST, with their system? Surely you cannot say that YaST was not a part of the OS as even you define it. Dustin 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)