Talk:Linux/Archive 11

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 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 →

Contents

Weird case

We have a weird case here. Most of what ordinary users think of as "Linux" is not the kernel ... but rather the systems that have been built on it: systems like Ubuntu Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, and SuSE Linux. Ordinary end users do not interact with the kernel at all; their experience of "Linux" is mostly shaped by X.org, Firefox, KDE or GNOME, VLC, RPM or APT, and so on ... not by the kernel.

The average user would not be able to distinguish an Ubuntu Linux system from a similar "userland" built around the OpenBSD kernel, or the Solaris kernel, or what-have-you. Even the experience of most programmers is more driven by the language and libraries they work with than by the kernel ... with the exception of programmers who work on the kernel, software that deals closely with hardware devices, or core libraries. If I write good code in a portable language such as Python or Lisp, I (correctly) expect it to work the same on FreeBSD or Solaris as on my own Ubuntu Linux system.

So we have a case here where the system as a whole is usually named after a part which, while necessary, is not (for the ordinary user) particularly distinguishing. The following conversation has probably happened many times:

A: Hey cool, what kind of Linux is that on your laptop?
B: It isn't any kind of Linux; it's FreeBSD.
A: So is that a Mac?
B: No, it's FreeBSD. It's a free Unix operating system.
A: Free Unix ... oh, so it's Linux.
B: No, it's kind of like Linux.
A: Well, it sure looks like Linux. Does it have Perl and KDE and Apache and Firefox?
B: Yeah.
A: Can it run Linux programs?
B: Almost always.
A: Why didn't you just tell me it was Linux then?
B: Dude, you can put Perl and KDE and Apache and Firefox on Windows; that doesn't make Windows into a Linux system.
A: It kind of does ... I mean, Cygwin is even made by Red Hat these days.
B: Well, it doesn't have a Linux kernel.
A: Kernel? What does the kernel matter? I'm not talking about memory allocation or scheduling; I'm talking about the part of the system I can see.

It is perfectly reasonable to want to have a name for all that stuff that is in common between a FreeBSD workstation and a Red Hat workstation. The naive Person A in the above dialog uses the word "Linux" for this, just as he would have to describe the similarities between SuSE and Ubuntu. This usage is, of course, technically wrong.

But it does make it more understandable that folks such as the FSF want to draw more attention to the userland: to the tools and libraries that are a much more user-visible part of the system than the kernel is.

I'm not offering a solution. Some folks (okay, Debian and the FSF) like the "GNU/Linux" name. As far as I can tell, though, that is a political choice rather than a technical one: using the "GNU" name shows an affinity for software freedom as a principle. As such, Ubuntu could reasonably be called a GNU/Linux, even though they don't actually use the term.

(Heck, OpenBSD has recently been closer to the original GNU principles than most Linux distributions have been, with their resistance to closed-source drivers. After all, it was closed-source drivers that got Stallman pissed off at proprietary software in the first place. The OpenBSD folks have written a lot more songs about free software than Stallman ever did, too. :) )

Maybe our article Linux should focus on the Linux kernel, and we should come up with another title such as Free Unix-like systems or something, which would encompass all those systems that the naive Person A above would consider to be "Linux". Except maybe Windows+Cygwin. --FOo 04:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fedora Linux, Ubuntu Linux, Damn Small Linux, SUSE Linux, Red Hat Linux, and so on, what's the common element? It's not that end users or "naive users" think that Linux is not the kernel but the full OS, this is the common name that distrbutors use for OSes that use Linux kernel, it's irrelevant if ignorant users can make a confusion between machines running KDE on top of BSD or Linux. BTW, KDE 4 will probably run on top of Windows too, it won't make it Linux or BSD. Bringing the argument that some ignorant users will make a confusions between Linux, BSD, or Windows because they all run KDE is absurd. Some people that don't know much about cars might make a confussion between two similar models, that doesn't change who made them and what they really are. -- AdrianTM 07:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, Debian has non-Linux ports, and Debian GNU/Hurd omits "linux" entirely for obvious reasons. As for as end users are concerned the most important part is the distro name, basically. Debian GNU/Linux and Debian GNU/Hurd are ideally functionally equivalent. Chris Cunningham 09:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
So if everyone called a BMW a Lexus by mistake it makes it's wrong naming correct? Besides, that, some people is more like most people. If someone saw me running Gnome, most of the time they would instantly think Linux, not GNU or even Gnome. Dustin 17:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think my point was somewhat missed. But that's not too surprising, since I was trying to make it in a rather circuitous route by discussing the funny edges of the problem space rather than coming out and staking a particular definitive (and possibly harsh-sounding) claim. But since folks seem to insist, here's the definitive and harsh-sounding claim I'll stake:

Our article Linux should be about the kernel. The name "Linux" properly belongs to the kernel which Linus and others have created. It is the kernel which was originally named Linux. It is kernel developer Linus Torvalds who holds the trademark "Linux", not a distribution developer such as Red Hat. The Linux kernel is not just used in the server and workstation systems that the present article focuses on; it is also used in mainframes, appliances, communications gear, and so on. There is a lot to discuss in an encyclopedia article about the Linux kernel.

Server and desktop "Linux distributions" are simply free Unix-like systems that use the Linux kernel. They have more in common with other free Unix systems, like FreeBSD and OpenSolaris, than they have with (say) the embedded system in a SNOM telephone, which also runs a Linux kernel. The "userland" of a so-called "Linux system" has a lot in common with that of any other free Unix system, such as FreeBSD or OpenSolaris. The end-user components, such as graphics system (X.org), desktop systems (GNOME, KDE), browsers (Firefox), media tools (VLC, Gimp), servers (Apache, OpenSSH), and even language implementations (bash, Perl, Python, GCC) are all in common. Moreover, the end-user components make up a much larger portion of the system than the kernel does ... an installed and fully kitted-out BSD system has much more in common with a similarly kitted-out Slackware Linux system, than the BSD kernel has in common with the Linux kernel.

"GNU/Linux" raises the issue of the user-facing components, but erroneously focuses solely on the GNU contributions. There is no reason to think of Perl or X.org as a GNU component, since neither was developed by Project GNU. The overarching theme that connects the components above (as well as the kernels and libraries) is that of free Unix-like systems, a continuation of the Unix school of operating systems.

It would be more reasonable to move our discussion of the features of "Linux distributions" (focusing on desktop and server systems) to an article on free Unix systems in general. And, logically, this leaves the article Linux dealing specifically with the kernel. --FOo 09:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I do wish people would stop bringing this up as if it hadn't been discussed to death already in the extensive talk archives. Insofar as there needs to be some non-anal way of referring to "Free Unix-like systems the use the Linux kernel", a clear majority of the universe has chosen to go for "Linux". To avoid using "Linux" to refer to free Unix-like systems the use the Linux kernel, when everyone already does it, is to kowtow to those who see the term as a personal insult. It has been demonstrated that the only people who seem to take this nomenclature personally are the Free Software Foundation. It is not "inaccurate" so much as "imprecise", and as this isn't a legal document it is fair to sacrifice precision where it is to the detriment of the article's readability. Chris Cunningham 09:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"GNU/Linux" raises the issue of the user-facing components, but erroneously focuses solely on the GNU contributions. There is no reason to think of Perl or X.org as a GNU component, since neither was developed by Project GNU. The overarching theme that connects the components above (as well as the kernels and libraries) is that of free Unix-like systems, a continuation of the Unix school of operating systems.

I look at the name "GNU" as simply the name of an operating system, like Windows, FreeBSD, etc. To me it doesn't say "this is an operating system we wrote a lot of components for", it says "this is an operating system for people to use in freedom". It doesn't matter who wrote what software that runs on this system, because this is not about giving credit; it is about having a name and sending a message with that name, about the philosophy of free software and the idea of a free operating system. The GNU project is so named because it's a project to create the GNU operating system. The GNU operating system is not named so because it is developed by the GNU project.
Yeah, this is off-topic. Sorry. Just read your comment and the paragraph quoted above and thought I'd share how I see it. 80.233.255.7 21:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Linux is not part of GNU project, and everyone is free to use GNU code that's provided under GPL if their follow GPL terms, however, there's no advertising clause in GPL. Some people consider that's helpful to promote their cause to use GNU/Linux name, however that's POV pushing under any definition of POV and it's not to be allowed on Wikipedia. -- AdrianTM 22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody ever claimed that Linux is »GNU Linux«. Neither has the GNU Project any concrete distribution of either GNU or GNU/Linux. From a historic point of view GNU/Linux is clearly a variant of GNU, because first there was GNU (lacking a kernel) and then there came Linux, a kernel, which was then released under the GNU GPL to get it integrated in GNU. I have seen the vast archive of this talk page but I still think it is (for Wikipedia) not correct to refer to the operating system as Linux. Maybe some day we will change this. -- mms 23:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ridiculous. Should the Model T Ford be referred to as the Goodyear/Model T because the tyres were waiting for a chassis? "GNU/Linux" is an artificial term with spurious justification, no official blessing from accredited parties and little mindshare. In absense of any of the above, the common name is the correct one. This applies to all other Wikipedia articles. Chris Cunningham 23:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I understand what you're trying to say. What is "part of GNU project" exactly? Is it software written for the GNU operating system or software added to the GNU operating system? You're wrong if you think that when software is added to the GNU operating system, it becomes "their software". It is like saying that Photoshop on Windows is Microsoft's software. Clearly that's not the case. Furthermore, it doesn't mean that Windows should now be called Windows/Photoshop. Which in our case means that the GNU project has no obligation whatsoever to call the GNU operating system GNU/Linux after they add the Linux kernel to it. After all that's what Linus Torvalds did: wrote a kernel, added software written by other people to it, and called it by his name. Why the GNU project is suggesting GNU/Linux instead of just GNU is something for you to think of.
By the way, POV (point of view) is not the opposite of NPOV (neutral point of view). When I see people using that name, I just assume they don't know what they're talking about. 80.233.255.7 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you answering me or AdrianTM? I guess the first and so I answer again. I think I know what a POV is and I asked you to look at the development of Free Software historically. The FSF/UNESCO Free Software Directory has a list of every GNU software. Nobody has asked to call Photoshop Windows, but rather I ask not to call Windows Photoshop. Linus Torvalds received patches for his kernel but never developed an operating system. The GNU Project developed an operating system an used Linux as the kernel which is not a GNU project. -- mms 00:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I was answering AdrianTM. My comment was at the same thread level as yours. Sorry to cause any confusion. I favour your argument, frankly. 80.233.255.7 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue is pretty simple, GNU project could have taken the Linux kernel code and package that as "GNU/Linux" or even only "GNU" or whatever name they wanted, however what happened is that Linus Torvalds made a kernel and took GNU code and used it in his Linux OS, and even more precisely different distributions took both the code of GNU and Linux as well as KDE, GNOME, X and other code and called it: Red Hat Linux, Ubuntu Linux, Damn Small Linux, Fedora Linux and people called that category guess what? Linux. Now, RMS and FSF and some other people that want to promote an agenda (admittedly good intended) want to call that as "GNU/Linux" in order to promote some ideals, that's perfectly fine with some amendments: 1. Wikipedia is not the place to promote agendas. 2. this would be fine if would be generally accepted, but it's not, even by Linus and other kernel developers. 3. free code is free and doesn't come with advertising clauses. 4. asking people to call a product of other people something else that the people that are developing want is bad form even if those people use the code of a free product (example: if you make the code of your product available for free and don't ask for advertising clause and I take that code and I make a successful product it's really uncivilized from you to come and ask me to name my product after yours in order to promote your philosophy. (yes I will say that I'm glad that you made the code free, but I don't owe you anything more than that). -- AdrianTM 06:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Every naming is agenda. Wikipedia has to make a decision what it refers to with »Linux«. Either way this will reflect a POV. We should choose the one which is the correctest.
Does Linus Torvalds agree that Linux is just the kernel?
He recognized this at the beginning. The earliest Linux release notes said, "Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info." [1]
Why not just say "Linux is the GNU kernel" and release some existing version of GNU/Linux under the name "GNU"?
It might have been a good idea to adopt Linux as the GNU kernel back in 1992. If we had realized, then, how long it would take to get the GNU Hurd to work, we might have done that. (Alas, that is hindsight.) Today, with the GNU Hurd working, it would not make sense to do this. We don't want to release a GNU/Linux system as "GNU", because we are getting ready to package and release the real GNU system.
There is another reason why we don't want to take some existing version of GNU/Linux and relabel it as "GNU": that would be somewhat like making a version of the GNU system and labeling it "Linux". That wasn't right, and we don't want to act like that. [2]
Whatever you contributed, is it legitimate to rename the operating system?
We are not renaming anything; we have been calling this system "GNU" ever since we started it, in 1983. The people who tried to rename it to "Linux" should not have done so. [3]
BTW as I read the just archieved discussion: There is no problem to say that the operating system is »GNU/Linux« and then there are Linux based operating systems which don't use any GNU software. They just don't fit in the GNU/Linux article but should be in Linux systems. [4] -- mms 11:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
No. We're not "choosing the correctest". We are using the name most commonly used as shorthand for "operating systems built with the Linux kernel" in absense of any authoritative answer. Now let this drop. Chris Cunningham 12:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Last Silvester I got more greetings which read Sylvester. Still Wikipedia doesn't change the content of these two articles in order to comply with widespread misbeliefs held as truths (as Gronky puts it). Wikipedia strives for accuracy. -- mms 12:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yet more meta-nonsense in place of an actual retutation of the point being made. Fact: There is no authority in place to name the OS. Fact: There is no precedent in computer science for conjoined names being normative. The naming of the OS is an accident of history. In the absense of any authority on the subject group consensus is as good as we're going to get. End of story. And yet another page is wasted on three letters. Chris Cunningham 13:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Chris, the only correction would be that there is an authority to name the OS and that authority is the person, company, or organization that releases that OS, that's why I gave you the examples: Red Hat Linux, Fedora Linux, Damn Small Linux, Ubuntu Linux, and so on, with few exception call it "Linux". Who are we to come and say to them "no, you are damn wrong, it's incorrect, you need to call it [...]" -- AdrianTM 14:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yet clearly you consider Linus Torvalds to be such an authority and not Richard Stallman. 80.233.255.7 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The authority is clearly the GNU Project under which license Linux is released. This doesn't imply a right of the GNU Project to rename other projects but it shows who is the authority in this field. And nobody wants to rename or fork Linux (see above quote). If some GNU/Linux distribution vendors name their distribution »something Linux« Wikipedia should use this name to refer to their distribution. But the type of the operating system is still GNU/Linux. This way one also avoids the confusion what is meant with »Linux« (it is just the kernel then) and the classification of operating systems like Debian GNU/kFreeBSD which is certainly not »Linux-based« becomes easy. -- mms 17:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, please point me to the place where I can download the 'GNU/Linux' OS, and not one of the hundreds of distros that make use of the GNU tools and the Linux kernel. The name 'GNU/Linux' is not used by the majority of the world when referring to Linux the OS. Our naming conventions are quite plain - we use the common name, regardless of how 'wrong' you may think it is. This debate is beyond belief. We are going round and round and round in circles without any new arguments being given. -Localzuk(talk) 17:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Your argument doesn't fly. Tell me where I can download the "Linux" operating system. 80.233.255.7 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I have not claimed that anyone has authority to name it, my argument does fly. I haven't said 'Linus Torvalds has the authority to name the OS'. I have said that we are using the common name. On the other hand, someone has said that the GNU Project is the authority in naming Linux, therefore I asked where I can download the simple, plain, 'GNU/Linux'.-Localzuk(talk) 07:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have given arguments but you dont't go into. Instead you come up with new false statements. There is of course Debian GNU/Linux, the biggest and widest supported (except source distributions) GNU/Linux distribution on which are many other distributions based on. So I wouldn't even say that it is common to refer to GNU/Linux as Linux. But even if this were the case, still think about the article Sylvester. -- mms 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You are offering an anecdote and dodging the burden of proof required on the claim that the FSF has authority in establishing naming conventions in operating systems. Please stop wasting electrons on the talk page with the same tired, ineffectual arguments. This is my last post on this thread, and hopefully ever again on this topic. Chris Cunningham 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
No, Debian GNU/Linux is a distribution that has chosen to follow the GNU Projects naming convention. It is not the GNU/Linux download I asked about. Also, can you back up your claims that Debian is the biggest and widest supported distro? I base my 'common' usage on various things - such as what the media uses etc... Not just on what individual projects name their distros.-Localzuk(talk) 07:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why you begin with »No«. Debian GNU/Linux is an example you have asked for. Tell me a distro with more packages and more supported architectures. The GNU Project doesn't distribute GNU in a user friendly way. They have Debian for this. But Debian isn't supported by the FSF any more. Instead it just sponsors gNewSense which is Debian-based. -- mms 08:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
We are not talking here about Debian, we are talking here about the OS in general and only "Linux" is the common term that everyone uses. We can't talk about "GNU/Linux" when distros important as Red Hat or Ubuntu don't use use the term. Convince them and then come and troll Wikipedia with your POV. -- AdrianTM 13:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "[...]then come and troll Wikipedia with your POV". Do anti-GNU zealots even realize that calling the OS "Linux" is also POV? It is just a POV shared by more people, not any more correct, or any less POV than GNU/Linux. The bottom line is that "Wikipedia uses the name Linux because it is more widely used", period. If there is any authority, it is the FSF and RMS, who generated the OS and the ideas behind the OS. Torvalds is no authority, as he created no OS, but rather a kernel, about which we are not talking here. The users are also no authority, not even developers are. People use the name Linux, not because there is no (naming) authority to follow, but because there is freedom not to follow that authority (the FSF), and because most people do choose not to. People use the name Linux, just as they could call the OS "Bananas", or name their car "Henry". I just choose to call my car "car", and my OS "GNU/Linux". I don't want to force others to, that's right. However, it annoys me when other people patronize me for calling my "Henry" by the name "car". — Isilanes 15:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • FSF and RMS might be an authority in your mind, but they don't and can't control how people who actually make the product: Red Hat, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Fedora, Novell, etc call their products, that's not POV, that's fact. And this comes again to my point GNU code is free, if you understand what free means you'd understand that everyone can come and get the code and use it in a product that has a different name then GNU. (and I'm not even going to get into the discussion that GNU code is actually not such a big part of a Linux distribution). As I said before, if you set something free you need to learn how to let it go -- it's free, it's not yours anymore. -- AdrianTM 15:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 2+2=4, that's not POV, that's fact. However it hardly relates to the subject. Red Hat or any other calling their product this or that is anecdotal. It is no evidence as to what the OS "should" be called, or if there is any specific way it should be called. It is just a matter of freedom to call the OS whatever you feel like. I'll support your right to that freedom, even if I dislike your use of it. However, don't come saying you'll use the name Linux for no reason but that you fancy it, then say it is not POV. And include in this "you": Red Hat, Canonical Ltd., Linus Torvalds, the Pope Benedict XVI and any other who didn't actually come up with the ideas, create the movement and develop the root software behind what we today call "Linux". Giving freedom is "leting go", as you put it. But going away (Linux) is a choice, as arbitrary (POV) as staying (GNU/Linux), and more or less people doing either won't change this fact. Using the term "Linux" is pragmatism (which I support), not NPOV. — Isilanes 16:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Anecdotal? Ha! This is how companies, people and mass media call the operating system, try a google fight to see by what margin "Linux" wins over "GNU/Linux". And... things have names that people call them, there's no such thing as a right name. I agree that in general if we discuss to call some specific thing "x" or "z" supporting each of those variants is a POV but that's not the point, if most of the people call it "x" then using "z" in Wikipedia is nothing else than POV pushing while using "x" is the norm, we just need to use what people are using, most importantly what Linux vendors and distributors call their product -- and as I said "Linux" is the common denominator. -- AdrianTM 18:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Better make that a googlefight for Linux -GNU/ -"Linux kernel" and "GNU/Linux". I get a result of 388,000,000 for the prior and 38,800,000 for the latter. The term 'Linux' is much more commonly used. Why is this still being debated?-Localzuk(talk) 18:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's also funny, when you set something free you need to learn to let go... you can't really come back and ask for different favors, like free advertizing for your philosophy on the count that you were the originator of the software. If you want advertizing you can set that as a requirement in the license: "all products that are based on this code should have GNU/ in front of the name" if you don't have such requirement in the license it's really bad form to come after downstream users of the code and ask them to use a specific name for their products. But that's actually not related to Wikipedia issue, it's more a comment about the naming issue of products based on free code. -- AdrianTM 14:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert casualties

Due to whole-reverting we lost some reordering work. I'm restoring this. I also take issue with the change to the IP section, which introduces some weaselly wording where it isn't required. The only change I'm making to the current intro is to remove the tacking-on of the word "kernel" to the second sentence; it's unnecessary for meaning and the lack of the definite article makes it look horrible. Chris Cunningham 09:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So I lied. I've partially reverted the intro as well. I don't see any consensus on the rved edits, so basically the only change is to remove the GNU qualifier from the intro altogether in favour of later explanation. This is IMO the ideal result anyway, it's just that we never seemed to be able to hack out consensus before. Chris Cunningham 09:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The only change I'm making to the current intro is to remove the tacking-on of the word "kernel" to the second sentence; it's unnecessary for meaning and the lack of the definite article makes it look horrible.

I strongly object to this change. It entirely undermines that sentence. Please see the discussion above between me and AdrianTM for reasoning. 80.233.255.7 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for keeping "GNU/Linux vs Linux" discussion in talk page

I'd like to keep the discussion in the talk page and never archieve it, this is because I'm sure in 3 months or less there will be somebody who will come here and make the same tired arguments that were made last year and the year before and fill almost all the 10 pages of archived talk. At least this way people will see what mess they can provoke and might think twice before restarting the discussion (not that I have much illusions, but it's worth a try) -- AdrianTM 18:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather link to it from a custom box at the top of the page. It's too long to be left in here permanently. Chris Cunningham 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Discouraging discussion is the worst possible way to solve a disagreement. In fact, it is not a solution at all: you effectively pretend that the issue does not exist. 10 pages of archives say otherwise. Instead you should be looking for, or suggesting, a compromise that all parties can agree on. (By the way, redirecting GNU/Linux to GNU apparently isn't one of them.) 80.233.255.7 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't discourage discussion, however I would like to discourage people coming all over again with the same tired arguments. If they see right in front of their eyes that somebody else used the same arguments one year ago maybe they won't start to repet them and come with novel proposals to solve this issue. However, some things cannot be solved, if some people want to call the OS in a specific way and the rest of the world calls it in a different what is the solution? We already have a section about GNU and an explanation why RMS asked to call the OS "GNU/Linux" and also a link to the article about the name controversy, we also have "GNU/Linux" redirected to this page. Short of calling Linux OS "GNU/Linux" what else can be done, what other compromises do you want from us? -- AdrianTM 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
One that fairly represents all points of view, in effect representing a neutral point of view. In fact, the solution suggested by Fubar Obfusco sounds fairly reasonable to me. (And I'm one of the GNU/Linux fan boys, if you check.) Too bad that discussion boiled down to another "I'm right, you're wrong, and I don't even want to consider your opinion"-fest. 80.233.255.7 22:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeking a compromise

Actually I have a somewhat different proposition. How about:

  • a short Linux article, that
    • explains that it is a word frequently used to refer to a set of mainly free Unix-like operating systems that use the Linux kernel;
    • has GNU/Linux in "See also";
    • refers the visitor to a list of free Unix-like operating systems using the Linux kernel;
  • a short GNU/Linux article, that
    • explains that it is also a word often used to refer to a set of free Unix-like operating systems using the Linux kernel;
    • explains what does Richard Stallman and "the rest of us" have to do with the word (basically a summary of GNU/Linux naming controversy);
    • has Linux in "See also";
    • refers the visitor to a list of free Unix-like operating systems using the Linux kernel;
  • other articles that focus on history of free Unix-like operating systems using the Linux kernel, the success of whatever has been a success, how they're popular in the server market, etc.

Basically I want to make it very clear that it is a "set of (free) Unix-like operating systems using the Linux kernel" that is being referred to. Also I want to make sure that neither opinion is favoured by making the articles focus on that they are just names, one perhaps more popular than the other, that none of them is a name for what really is the other. (Because that would be implying that one is the "correct" one, but whatever our opinions are, in this case a true compromise is more important.) As someone said above, the only thing that they all truly have in common is the kernel. To use a lame analogy, all cars have an engine, but that doesn't mean that the engine article should speak of wheels, seats, windows and whatever else cars have. That is what the wheels, car seats, windows articles should speak of. In this case, it is operating system (Debian GNU/Linux, Slackware), desktop environment (Openbox, GNOME), or toolchain articles.

So what do you think? I'm particularly interested in opinions on this proposition, and not any more opinions on which name is the correct one.

80.233.255.7 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and of course, any suggestions or corrections on what the main articles should talk of are welcome as well. 80.233.255.7 01:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the suggestions at all. GNU/Linux would be a duplicate either of "GNU/Linux naming controversy" or Linux article. My proposal is to leave it like this, have a GNU section in Linux page that explains RMS role and his naming request and have there a link to "GNU/Linux naming controversy". It also can have a link to "GNU/Linux naming controversy" in "see also" dab link if people consider is needed. -- AdrianTM 02:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The controversy article can be removed if necessary. Your proposition isn't any different than the current situation, and obviously it isn't helping at all. Please consider my proposition point by point, keeping in mind that the controversy article can be removed if needs be. "I don't like it" is too broad. 80.233.255.7 06:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I prefer AdrianTM's solution. I still don't understand why prominence is trying to be sought for a term that is not commonly used. The term 'Linux' is most commonly used as described in the article - true or false? Our naming conventions call for the article to be named using the most common name, true or false? Where is this constant debate coming from? Yes there is a controversy in the real world over the name - but that is covered by its own article. We shouldn't be buying into that controversy ourselves and naming things according to the flavour of the month (what is to say that one day some other major organisation/project that is a part of nearly all distros makes out that it should be called X/GNU/Linux?)-Localzuk(talk) 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the article about the naming controversy, I don't want to remove it, actually I'd like to link to it from the "see also" link, that would clarify why GNU/Linux redirects to Linux too. Do you see any other problem left? The article as it is, is pretty good, I don't see any essential problem with it. -- AdrianTM 07:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The term "GNU/Linux" is not used as commonly as the term "Linux", but it is used commonly. See archives, Wikipedia, Google, etc, for evidence. By asking "where is this constant debate coming from" you recognize that there is an on-going debate that will not end unless both sides feel they are not under-represented.
Let me reiterate.
  1. What am I trying to solve: a disagreement between editors.
  2. How am I going to do it: by suggesting a compromise that both sides can agree on.
  3. What compromise am I suggesting: that GNU/Linux and Linux articles focus solely on naming, the history of each name, how to pronounce them, etc. Everything else is incorporated into appropriate articles (see car engine example above.)
Is there any other way to solve it? (Other than pretending that the issue doesn't exist.) It is less than helpful to suggest that the current situation is fine, when there are people coming in all the time saying that it is not.
Localzuk, when the term "X/GNU/Linux" becomes as commonly used as "GNU/Linux", Wikipedia will reflect that opinion as well. Fairly representing ALL points of view is what neutral point of view is about, and neutral point of view is at the core of Wikipedia's editing guidelines.
Again, please comment on each point of my proposition, as "I don't like it" isn't constructive criticism.
80.233.255.7 08:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with having a GNU/Linux and a Linux articles that focus on naming, there's nothing worse than this. We already have the GNU/Linux naming controversy article that explain that into a somewhat NPOV way, why make 2 other articles that would cover the same issue? Also, as you know you can't bring references from Wikipedia to prove that GNU/Linux is a term that's normally used to name the OS, as for Google Linux beats GNU/Linux by an order of magnitude, that doesn't warrant treating them on equal footing. The fact that this issue comes back again and again is not a proof that the issue is legitimate, (for example the issue about the reality of Holocaust will always be brought up by Holocaust deniers, that's not a proof that's a legitimate issue and that a consensus should be reached between historians and Holocaust deniers) -- AdrianTM 09:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, consensus among historians plays a major part in history; it is highly unlikely that the way Holocaust is reflected in history books isn't a result of consensus. We reflect opinions, we do not favour one over the other. We are talking about a naming issue, I don't think that comparing that to whether Holocaust happened or not is appropriate. The number of Google hits is irrelevant for two reasons: 1) when there are two opinions, both are equally represented, not the one that has more supporters, 2) the number is highly unlikely to be of any statistic value. The fact that it comes back is evidence that there is an issue, and if there is, it should be solved. That's what I'm trying to do.
I would like to not go in further detail into that. You haven't said anything that hasn't been said in the discussion above. I'd much rather prefer constructive discussion rather than "I'm right, you're wrong" kind of talk. I'll ask for the third time: please comment on my proposition so that I know what needs to be improved.
80.233.255.7 09:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I did explain why your proposals are worse than current situation. -- AdrianTM 09:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, no you didn't. You said two things: first, "I don't see where the problem is" in the light of the discussion above, discussion throughout 10 pages of archives, GNU/Linux and a dozen of other article talk pages; second, "I don't like your suggestion" yet failing to actually suggest anything in its place.
Anyway, I'm beginning to think that perhaps you're just being ignorant and are here to counter any attempt at constructive discussion, so feel free not to comment back. 80.233.255.7 10:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I feel free to comment back, I'm sorry if that doesn't make you happy. Again that was my comment about your proposal you didn't comment on this except dismissing my objection: "We already have the GNU/Linux naming controversy article that explain that into a somewhat NPOV way, why make 2 other articles that would cover the same issue?" And I did propose something instead, current version is pretty good I don't see any serious objections to this version (beside some constant trolling from people who want to push a specific POV) -- AdrianTM 10:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a very good article that explains what neutral point of view on Wikipedia is about. I'm sure you've never read it, so let me quote some of it for you.

The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

I'm really trying my best to not under- or over-represent one point of view over the other in my proposition. I'm afraid I can not say the same thing about you from what I've seen so far. 80.233.255.7 20:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Good that you mention over-representing, did you read this about undue weight?

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

So, apparently prominence matters. -- AdrianTM 20:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with the Linux article having more content than the GNU/Linux article and recognizing that it is the most popular point of view. But let's not forget that this is a naming issue. The paragraph you've quoted in your comment does not negate points made before it. I'll quote it again here for convenience: "it should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one." In effect, this means that the article as it is now should not have the name "Linux". 80.233.255.7 20:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it should be called "former OS known as Linux". -- AdrianTM 21:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
And you also make a confusion between issues, in the naming controversy article both opinions are presented even if they are not equally prominent, however, when you use a name you use the name that people use and the one that's in the dictionary, not the one promoted by a vociferous minority in order to promote their own political agenda. Wikipedia is not about promoting political agendas. -- AdrianTM 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
When I as an individual use a name I use the one that I prefer, because I am not an encyclopedia. That name happens to be GNU/Linux. Note, however, that I'm not suggesting that we should use that name instead of Linux. That is why I emphasized the phrase "free Unix-like operating systems that use the Linux kernel", where neither point of view is favoured. 80.233.255.7 21:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

GNU/Linux vs Linux

[This thread was originally part of the discussion above "Seeking a compromise". It doesn't have to do much with the subject discussed above, however, thus in order to avoid confusion I have split them, preserving the original level of indentation. 80.233.255.7 15:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)]

 »The term 'Linux' is most commonly used as described in the article - true or false?«
true
 »Our naming conventions call for the article to be named using the most common name, true or false?«
false
 »Where is this constant debate coming from?«
GNU/Linux users come to Wikipedia and see their operating system referred to the name of their kernel. But this is not mainly a technical question. Historically or socially the foundation of the GNU Project was the most important event in computing. That's why the users of GNU or a variant of it attach so much importance to the fact, that they are using GNU.
Err? Our naming conventions do call for the most commonly used term by readers (ie. the general public) to be the name of an article. Here is an extract: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. Note the use of 'a general audience over specialists'. The use of GNU/Linux is a specialist term, as shown by the above mentioned google comparisons. Linux as the general name is the term generally used by the world - as you agree.-Localzuk(talk) 20:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Then they should go to GNU article not to Linux -- AdrianTM 19:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia seeks to be accurate. It does not necessarily yield to majority as you can see by the content of Sylvester and Silvester. Similar on Linux there should be »Other Uses: Linux is a name certain people and institutions use for GNU/Linux.« -- mms 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not see how the use of the name 'silvester/sylvester' has any relation to this discussion at all? Can you elaborate.-Localzuk(talk) 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Mms claims that sylvester is more widely used (to refer to the last day of the year), yet silvester is the page (correctly) referring to it in Wikipedia, whereas "sylvester" is a kind of disambig. It relates because it means Wikipedia abides by correctness (if any be), above popularity. The point is whether "GNU/Linux" is correct and "Linux" wrong. If this where the case, popularity would be irrelevant, as we must all agree. However I can not say that "Linux" is wrong (even if I disagree with its use... even if I do use it), because it is an somewhat arbitrary name given by people to something (see my answer to AdrianTM below, anyway). — Isilanes 21:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no such thing as "correct" name for objects, products and concepts. If we call a "table" "table" is not because that's the right term it's because that's the term most English speakers use, if the mojority would start to call a table "chair" that that would be the "correct" term to call an object that we call now "table". Even if we assume that there are such things as "correct" names you'd have the burden to proof that the name you promote is the correct one (BTW, that would constitute original research), anyway, I cannot prove that in an objective way because there are no objective rules for naming things and products, the best thing that comes to objectivity is to use the names that people use to call their own products and I gave you enough example where the common denominator is "Linux" not "GNU/Linux". Ubuntu Linux, OpenSUSE Linux, Fedora Linux, Red Hat Linux, Mandriva Linux, PCLinuxOS, Damn Small Linux, Slackware Linux, Gentoo Linux, Knoppix Linux, Freespire Linux and so on. Who are you to come and tell those people and companies how to name their products? -- AdrianTM 18:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "There's no such thing as "correct" name for objects, products and concepts.". False. We call atoms "atom" because the name comes from the Greek átomos (i.e., "indivisible). Would you consider "hatom", or "aton", or "thingie" a correct way of naming atoms, depending on how popular these names turned out to be? No. "Atom" is correct, and "haton" is wrong, no matter Red Hat Hatonmaker Inc. saying they sell "Carbon hatons by the amu". Similarly, one could argue that, since we are using a OS that is like Unix, but free, and that this OS originated at the GNU project, the name GNU (GNU's Not Unix) applies. I don't think this should be a rigid rule, but I do see the point in supporting that. Anyway, quit using the "Red Hat Linux" "Mandriva Linux" etc. examples. They mean nothing. Nobody is proposing that these companies change the way they call their products, so stop that straw man. Mentioning it to support the correctness of "Linux" is like argueing that cars should be called "thingies" because "Toyota Thingies Ltd" is a market leader. It only adds to the popularity concern, which has already been agreed upon. — Isilanes 21:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately for you, you picked the best example to prove my point: atoms are not really indivisible (there are such things as neutrons and protons and electrons that compose an atom, and quarks and so on) but they are still called "atoms", But I didn't hear many physicists or Wikipedians who were offended by this horrible "error" in the name. This proves more than enough that even when a name is apparently "wrong" because of it's content it's still correct to use it if majority of people use it as such. -- AdrianTM 21:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately for both, you didn't understant my thesis. The name "atom" begin correct has nothing to do with atoms actually being indivisible. The fact is that when the word was invented, they thought it was indivisible, and hence the name. Now, you might argue that the word "atom" is incorrect for naming atoms, but the burden of proof would be on your hands. Until "atom" dismissed as wrong (and even after that), "hatom" or "aton" would be incorrect, because they do not conform to the etymology of the word. Etymology is in this case on the side of GNU, however, I don't see any anti-GNU proving "GNU OS" or "GNU/Linux OS" wrong, yet they rename it "Linux". Consider the following: in Basque, "Bridge to Rome" is a synonym for "rainbow". Now, would the name be less correct if I came and proved that it is not in fact a bridge, much less a road to Rome? No. Would the name "Bridge to Athens" be wrong? Yes, because it is unfaithful to the etymology of the expression. Anyway, I will repeat once and again that "Linux" being right or wrong is immaterial in this case, or more precisely that this is not a case where "being right" applies. People call it "Linux", they have the right to, and one can not say this is wrong. — Isilanes 22:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you understand your own example, etymology is not anything when it comes to words, all the words are transforming more or less and at any point in time the "correct" versions are further away from the originating version than intermediary variants. "Atomos" would probably be closer to Greek, but it's not correct in English, trolling Wikipedia pages making the point that "atomos" is "more correct" than "atom" would be futile and idiotic, the correct version is the one used in current speech by most of the people and specialists in that specific field even if in translation or original meaning is no longer "correct" and even if the form has been changed during time and language hopping. Wouldn't be funny for us to troll the atom article and make the point that the name is incorrect because the atom is not "indivisible" and that we need to find another "correct" name? -- AdrianTM 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • One can say this is wrong. Even Wikipedia can and should IMHO. But no one can forbid anyone to call it as he wants. Wikipedia says it is wrong to call the last day of a year sylvester. Nobody has complained about that. And nobody suggested to put the content of Linux to GNU/Linux an put the content of Linux kernel to Linux without a disambiguation notice, so the readers would have a quest to get to the article about the operating system they are looking for. -- mms 22:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are such rules as no POV pushing. In private you can call it however you want, nobody forbids you anything, just don't push minoritary opinon about a name as a common accepted name. Also, it would be incorrect (since you make so much case about correctitude and accuracy) to call Red Hat Linux "GNU/Linux" because you can't find GNU anywhere in its name (on the reverse you can call Debian GNU/Linux, "Linux" because "Linux" is present in its name)-- AdrianTM 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The OS that Red Hat distributes can quite reasonably be referred to as "Red Hat's GNU/Linux distro". It is GNU (plus the Linux kernel), and it is Red Hat's particular version of GNU (plus the Linux kernel). Most, or all, versions of the OS that we are talking about contain significantly more GNU than they contain Linux. Leaving out the largest component is not honest. Gronky 15:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all it's incorrect that GNU is the biggest component of the OS, second of all it's GNU code, not "GNU" I can take the code and use it in my product, I don't have to call it "GNU", that's the basic thing about free code, third of all when you refer to a product you need to refer at least how the company refers to it, not to invent names that promote other products of philosofies (which push POV by the way), forth there's no way to determine how a composed system has to be named: it could very well be Linux/GNU/BSD/KDE/etc if you follow your logic. -- AdrianTM 17:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Four meanings

We should notice that there are four meanings of the word operating system:

  1. a type of operating system (like GNU/Linux)
  2. a distribution of it (like Red Hat Linux)
  3. a concrete distribution of it (like Red Hat Linux 9)
  4. an installation of it

Now when I and others ask to rename the articles so that to the operating system is referred to as GNU/Linux, we mean the first meaning. We don't want to push Red Hat and other to rename their distributions through Wikipedia. We have to accept their decision how to call their operating system (second meaning). So Debian GNU/Linux is not a "Linux" it is a GNU/Linux operating system (first meaning). All other references in Wikipedia would be POV pushing". -- mms 13:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But what you are asking for is to name the article only by what a single organsation and its followers call it. The rest of the world do not call it that. As it stands, we are representing the majority via the title and the minority throrugh their own article and through a brief mention in this article - per our undue weight policies. -Localzuk(talk) 13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
"Single organisation and its followers" isn't any different from "a single person and their followers".
Interesting that you should mention the neutral point of view article. As I pointed out above, the article makes it clear that neither point of view should be favoured, whether or not the point of view in question is majority. By referring to these operating systems "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" in Wikipedia articles potentially implies that one is somehow more correct than the other, and thus we should avoid doing that. 80.233.255.7 15:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as more correct in this matter, the only criterion that remains is which one is mostly used by people. The "other opinion" is also very clearly presented in the GNU section and in naming controversy article that's linked in GNU section. Stop trolling this page with arguments that were already refuted. -- AdrianTM 15:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You obviously did not read my comment. It clearly indicates that I am trying to AVOID implying that one is "more correct". It also points out that we should avoid using a term merely because it is used by "majority", and this is in accordance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines, so your "only criterion" argument only confirms that you in fact did not read or understand my comment.
I believe the guidelines have also something to say about being polite to other editors, so you better be very certain that comments of other editors are indeed trolling when you say they are. 80.233.255.7 15:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You obviously didn't read mine, of course it doesn't imply that there's one "more correct" because there is no such thing, it just uses the name that people use. End of story. -- AdrianTM 17:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
People use both names. Let me type it for you in in all caps: NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. Majority has nothing to do with it so stop implying that it is the reason why we should use one rather than the other. 80.233.255.7 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
"Name that people use" = "name that most people use", now are you going to nitpick me to death? -- AdrianTM 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, yes, I probably will. It's the details that are important. Haven't you noticed that this whole time we've been talking to no end about a single word? But that's okay, since this isn't a local newspaper where it's no crime to get some minor details wrong; this is an encyclopedia. 80.233.255.7 22:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's OK, that's why you can troll it how ever you want and turn even people that were initially simpathetic for your cause against it. I'm starting to be completed disgusted by GNU trolls. What's wrong with using the name that most people use in case there's no standard about which name is to be used? 1. this is what the most people use. 2. there's no standard how to name an OS (existing example use kernel, for example Mac OS X even it it has BSD in it) -- AdrianTM 22:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That's off-topic, but people who get annoyed merely by beliefs of other people aren't the best people to talk to, spend time with or consider opinions of anyway.
"What's wrong with using the name that most people use?" -- nothing, except if you're writing an encyclopedia article and trying to write it in a neutral fashion. 80.233.255.7 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If we don't write about these topics we can avoid mentioning them. But as we have articles about GNU and Linux kernel and many about the variant of the one using the other how could we not give it a name? And why shouldn't Wikipedia decide which name is correct here as it had done in many other cases? -- mms 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia shouldn't decide simply because that's its policy. It's an encyclopedia It doesn't decide which is correct, it only reflects opinions on which is correct. I don't know of any other similar cases to this one, but I'd gladly familiarize myself with them.
I'm not suggesting to avoid mentioning them. I'm suggesting that they only be mentioned when at the same time it is made entirely clear that there's a disagreement between different opinions. 80.233.255.7 17:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
But we do that, there's an entire article about the issue GNU/Linux naming controversy. -- AdrianTM 17:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You're suggesting that neutral point of view between the "Linux" point of view and the "GNU/Linux" point of view is the "Linux" point of view. The article you keep mentioning is not enough when all the other articles imply that "Linux" is correct and "GNU/Linux" is not, by referring to these operating systems as "Linux". 80.233.255.7 21:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Which article implies that a name is correct and the other incorrect? There no such thing as "correct" names, however it's only normal to use the name that most people use, it's not about being correct or incorrect it's about being consistent and not pushing POV when the people who call it in a different way are a minority. -- AdrianTM 22:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
For instance, this one does. Yes, it's about consistency, not "pushing POV", and neutrality. The debate is over names. To remain neutral, we should not use either name. Simple. 80.233.255.7 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia judges what is the right name: Sylvester#Other_Uses -- mms 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't be used as a reference in Wikipedia, I thought you knew that. Also, I'm not sure about that example, but in a case when there's not much debate about a specific name then that's what it should be used, the problem here is that there isn't anybody who can declare either name right so we just use the one that's used by the most people. -- AdrianTM 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
That's idiotic: If some people don't agree how to call something not using any name at all. As I said "Former OS called Linux" would you be OK with that? -- AdrianTM 22:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It probably is idiotic, but fortunately what I'm suggesting is to use a neutral name, not no name at all. "Former OS called Linux" isn't good enough for three reasons: 1) "former os" suggests that it once was, but no longer is an operating system; 2) "called Linux" suggests that "Linux" was some time ago the proper name, but this is not the case if we want to remain neutral; 3) it is not "an operating system" it is "a set of operating systems". 80.233.255.7 22:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact RMS came with the genial idea of "GNU/Linux" 5 years or so after people were already using "Linux" or "Linux OS" when he figured it out that he doesn't get enough credit for GNU. -- AdrianTM 22:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact the Linux people came with the genial idea of "Linux" 8 years or so after the GNU Project was founded. Now who changed the name? -- mms 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly for Linus he took the code and thought it's free, he had no idea it comes with strings attached and trolls tied tight to those. -- AdrianTM 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent link edits

I've incorporated the slight reorg in the first history paragraph, and the "distributions" -> "distributors" change. Other than that I don't see the value in the other edits.All terms are already linked at least once, and the correct link for the Debian distro is Debian GNU/Linux, the full name of the OS. I've made a slight edit to where it said "Torvalds finds calling Linux in general GNU/Linux ridiculous" to make it clear that he was referring to the OS and not the kernel (which even the FSF isn't trying to call "GNU/Linux"). Chris Cunningham 14:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You say it. The link to the article of the distro is Debian. I don't understand that either. "Debian" is the name of the project an the only released distribution of it is "Debian GNU/Linux". But the "distributor" is still the project, not the distribution. -- mms 15:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, good point. I'd forgotten about the distributions -> distributors change. I'd still rather use "Debian GNU/Linux" as a single link though, linking half of a proper noun is stylistically poor. Chris Cunningham
Your change from "Linux" to "Linux-based systems" may be a sign of good will but it less accurate. Torvalds said "Linux" and meant the operating system as if he ever developed one. And there are Linux-based systems which RMS thinks is not correct to call them GNU/Linux! [5] -- mms 15:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
In that case the qualifier should be removed, and it should just say "finds calling the operating system GNU/Linux ridiculous". I'm fine with that change. Chris Cunningham 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
We have an article about GNU variants and we should link to it. -- mms 15:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Link to it using those words then, either directly or in a seealso. I don't feel that it's important enough to list there, especially given the inherent loading of the term "GNU variants" (which in the long run I feel will end up being renamed to "operating systems incorporating GNU code" or the like). Chris Cunningham 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
"operating systems incorporating GNU code" are not necessarily GNU variants. Think of FreeBSD for example. -- mms 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
"Debian GNU/kFreeBSD" is listed on the GNU variants page, as is "GNU/Solaris" (which is bizarrely failing to draw the wrath of the FSF for the rather murky legal aspects of a CDDL kernel using glibc right now). The FSF's decision to target Linux has nothing to do with technical realities and everything to do with it being high-profile. (but as I said, I'm not getting back into that argument). Chris Cunningham 18:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and Nexenta OS (formerly known as GNU/Solaris) are GNU variants using an alternative kernel. Linux is also an alternative kernel. The official kernel of GNU is the Hurd. It's so easy once you grokked it. -- mms 22:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong in saying that "Torvalds continues to direct the development of the kernel, while every other subsystem [...] continue to be developed separately"? Do you know any other "subsystem" Torvalds is directing the development? In regard to the confusion about "Linux" we should make that point as clearly as we can. -- mms 15:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The revision control system, for one. And yes, I know that's not a core system component, yadda yadda, but there's no need for an absolute qualifier there. It reads with the assumption that Torvalds works on the kernel and other people work on other things, which is good enough. Remember, we're encyclopedia editors, not lawyers. Chris Cunningham 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)