Talk:Linux/Archive 23

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 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 →

Contents

Criticism of Linux proposed for deletion

I nominatedCriticism of Linux for deletion, here's the discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Linux_(2nd_nomination) I'm not going to repeat the arguments here, if you are interested in either way please vote on that page. Thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ambiguous lack of desktop publishing and professional audio programs

The current article says "Although there is a lack of a Linux ports for some specialized program domains such as desktop publishing[23] and professional audio,[24][25][26] applications equivalent to those available for Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows are available for most tasks"

For many readers, including me, this can be ambiguous because it seems the above "most tasks" doesn't include desktop publishing and professional audio. This is not true since there are mature Linux programs in these domains.

I suggest the following sentence: "Although there is a lack of a Linux ports for some Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows programs in domains such as desktop publishing[23] and professional audio,[24][25][26] applications equivalent to those available for Windows and Mac are available for Linux." Touisiau (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that should be OK. The problem with your previous edits (as I said on your talk page) was that you were either giving specific examples of programmes not available, or that you were re-iterating what was said before. I haven't checked the sources in that sentence, but I suspect they'll be OK with a re-wording. ~~ [Jam][talk] 17:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder, on GNU/Linux

Re: your project "Refer to Linux consistently"

I would like to offer my opinion. The project to excise all references to GNU/Linux is deeply POV and wrong. It should be reverted completely and totally as quickly as possible. Virtually all references to Linux should be references to GNU/Linux. I am certainly unaware of any community consensus which would support the draconian and absurd campaign that has been conducted against the correct naming convention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The previous message was posted by Jimbo Wales at the following address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thumperward

Lightedbulb (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo's opinion is just an opinion among many and does not override talk page consensus, WP:UNDUE or WP:NC (CN). He is not "ruling" on anything, and if you go ask on his user talk page, I'm sure he will tell you that. If you want the page moved, the place to make a request is here. Prolog (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales is not "just an opinion among many". HE is Wikipedia's founder. And read again well what he says in the quote above. He wants the correct naming convention to be respected and that the numerous articles that have been wrongly redirected to Linux and that eliminated references to GNU/Linux be reverted. --Lightedbulb (t alk) 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
First off, here is the edit mentioned above. Now, Lightedbulb, a word of advice to a new user. Jimbo is not a God. He expresses opinions like everyone else. If he is making a decision policy, he will say such. In the comment above, he is referencing an attempt to remove all mention of GNU/Linux. You are doing the opposite, trying to add GNU to every place you can. Such a wide ranging change should be accomplished through consensus. Jimbo above does not say to add GNU, only that there is not a consensus to remove GNU. Now, someone else will probably revert the article again soon. I suggest you try to establish consensus for taking action like this again. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The aim is NOT to add the word GNU to EVERY occurrence of the word Linux.
When the article is referring to the kernel that has the name "Linux" the use of the word "Linux" is correct. But when an article or a section of it wrongly calls by the name "Linux" what indeed is GNU software, though running on a Linux kernel, the addition of the word GNU is justified. There has been a wrong practice carried out by some wikipedia editors of calling everything just "Linux". When another editor tried to correct the inaccuracy by pointing that to be precise the software under description was indeed GNU his contribution was quickly deleted, or reverted without further discussion. In fact, the so called "discussion" seemed to take place after not before the removal of the word GNU.

Mr. Wales, Wikipedia's founder, has the authority to correct this practice.

Lightedbulb (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know that Mr. Wales is a naming authority, I also didn't know that Wikipedia content has to follow Mr. Wales' points of view. Mr. Wales, please correct me if I'm wrong. -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Nicely put, but why does an article simply named "Linux" focus so heavily on GNU/Linux? - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Simple, read the archive of this talk page (most of the 20 pages are about this issue, I can't repeat everything here, can't I?), and also WP:NC. -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lightedbulb, you might like to read WP:3RR. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like sockpuppetry or at least meatpuppetry to me. I have filed a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bald Eeagle. Comments are welcome. Prolog (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well mysterious Rwx... whatever your nick is. If anyone else like BaldEagle or any other editor agrees with the statement made by Wikipedia's founder that the GNU/Linux be used as the correct naming convention then that editor is free to revert or correct the attempts made to omit or delete the use of GNU & GNU/Linux. Maybe the practice of having more than one account is something you like to use?

Lightedbulb (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion that GNU/Linux is the most correct name for the common operating system. But I don't consent to push this POV the way you do. We really need a consensus. And we have the better arguments, don't we? I suggest not to evangelize mainly in Wikipedia. Do it in the real word. Then some day we can point out to web searches that suggest that GNU/Linux is more commonly used. I say, I use GNU. When asked what new operating system that is, I answer that this is short for GNU slash Linux (you have to enunciate the slash) but I'm too lazy to say the whole name every time. --mms (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lightedbulb, your point of view on this is clear. Now, stop pushing it into articles and edit warring project-wide. The onus is on the person that wishes to change the present approach to justify it by convincing other editors. Prolog (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In reply to StuffOfInterest's statement that "Jimbo above does not say to add GNU, only that there is not a consensus to remove GNU" I'd like to highlight what Jimbo said: "Virtually all references to Linux should be references to GNU/Linux". I think we all agree that GNU shouldn't be mentioned without reason, but Jimbo's statement, which I agree with, would seem to be that when refering to the operating system, we should use the name "GNU/Linux". --Gronky (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Jimmy was just expressing his personal opinion, not making a fiat policy ruling. Trust me, when he makes something official policy he makes it very clear and he doesn't start such policy rulings off with: "I would like to offer my opinion..." Sarah 13:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI folks, this is being discussed on the administrators' noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_trying_to_use_Jimbo_comment_as_a_club. Sarah 13:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My Linux distribution runs software by GNU, KDE (which uses a library by Trolltech) and X.Org on top of the Linux Kernel, therefore I suggest that all references to Linux refer to GNU/KDE/Trolltech/X.Org/Linux. -Halo (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I've just noticed that no-one has mentioned Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem yet, which is very relevant to this situation -Halo (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL, didn't know about that because I would have mentioned it. -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

First, "Jimbo says" is not a good argument for anything. Having said that, I stand by my opinion (which is, as several have correctly noted, my own personal opinion and not policy) and urge editors to continue to revisit this issue. There is an ongoing debate about the naming convention, and I don't think there is any firm consensus one way or the other. I also don't think that any of our outstanding policies would give support to the campaign we have seen to excise GNU/Linux from so many articles. As far as I am aware, all major GNU/Linux distributions refer to it as GNU/Linux at least some of the time. Perhaps a useful approach would be to approach this as being similar to controversies about American versus British English, i.e. "please relax" as rule number one. :) In any event, I was not and am not recommending edit wars or a campaign to do anything...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

While relaxing is certainly always a good idea, I don't think your comparison really works from a common usage perspective. At the moment, I'm getting 10,155 hits for "Linux" and 141 for "GNU/Linux" on Google News, 3,200 vs. 28 on site:news.bbc.co.uk and 3,370 vs. 32 on site:cnn.com. Prolog (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal either way. If [[GNU/Linux]] = [[Linux|GNU/Linux]] = [[Linux]] (link-wise) and GNU/Linux is the most common kind of Linux then why do you care? To me it's similar to [[fish|wet fish]] vs [[fish]]. It's absurd that this has gone on for so damn long. Mike92591 (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that simple, it's politics, "wet fish" doesn't promote an idea or ideal as opposed to just "fish". And I don't think that Jimbo is right that most of the "major GNU/Linux distributions" refer to it as GNU/Linux, I think the name is Red Hat Linux not Red Hat GNU/Linux, I think it's Ubuntu Linux, Slackware Linux and so on, from major distribution only Debian uses "GNU/Linux" and if you look at initial message they didn't even think of using GNU/Linux and the initial call to people to join the project was "Fellow Linuxers", but that's history... now they call it GNU/Linux, but again, it's a minority. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Does either promote much of anything? What makes you so sure? From my experiences, the only time it's an issue is when people make it an issue. Mike92591 (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It promotes freedom according to RMS, you decide if that's true or if it's much of anything... -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Site searches reveal that major distributions employ both usages, though the shorthand "Linux" is used more often. And as Prolog noted above, mainstream news sites use both, though the shorthand is used more often. In light of this, and of Jimbo's comments to use the British/American English analogy and allow both to be used on WP, a policy is clearly needed in order to settle this. Check my past edits on the pages involved and you'll see I've been reverting "GNU/Linux" to "Linux", to maintain what I'd thought was a consensus, and been flamed for doing so, accused of sockpuppetry, etc. Jimbo's recent comment persuaded me to dig further, and learn that I was wrong about consensus, so I undid two of my reversions, and asked for others' undos of my reversions to stand. Owning up to and correcting one's own mistakes is a Good Thing. Technobadger (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The page WP:JIMBOSAID is devoted to evaluating the nature Jimbo's personal input on specific content-related matters. Please take that part of the discussion over there.--Factwhen (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, we are glad that you discovered on your short stay over here this interesting talk page. BTW, somebody already posted a link to that page. Thanks. -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a better analogy would be the Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf naming controversy. We will most likely never reach agreement on the "correct" name, so we use the one most commonly used in the english speaking world (Persian Gulf, Linux) with mention and redirect of the alternative. Zarniwoot (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


Surely, there is already a guideline on this issue, which has been discussed to extreme lengths now, in the form of our naming conventions. Namely, the guideline is to use the name which is most commonly used around the world. We did various comparisons in the past, and Prolog provided some examples above. Linux is the more common form used, and GNU/Linux isn't. Why is this still being discussed?-Localzuk(talk) 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Linux Mark Institute and licensing fees

Just so you are aware, there is a similar section on the Linux Distribution page, which I've suggested should now be discussed here instead. ~~ [Jam][talk] 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To add to this discussion here I found a good reason that would motivate the use of the word Linux. This comes from the Linux Mark Institute which collects money for Linus Torvalds.

I am a commercial entity (for example, a company, partnership or sole proprietor, profit or non-profit) selling software-related goods or services and using the word "Linux" in the entity’s name. Do I need to apply for a sublicense?
Yes, because you are using Linux as part of a trademark in connection with software-related goods or services. Software-related goods are computer programs and systems, or packages bundling software with tools, utilities, hardware, etc. Software-related services are services that deploy, document, facilitate the use of, or enhance computer programs and systems. Even if you don’t use Linux as part of the entity’s name, if the entity has a product or service (whether sold or given away for free) that uses "Linux" in its name, you still need a sublicense for the use of the word Linux in the name of the products or services.

Taken from
Linux Mark Institute
http://www.linuxmark.org/faq.php#I_am_a_commercial_entity_a_company

Midnightcrow (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"...the Linux Mark Institute which collects money for Linus Torvalds."

I don't see any mention of money collected anywhere in the article or the FAQ page -- do you have anything that indicates whether or not this sublicensing actually involves a fee of any kind?--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If you take a look at the Linux Mark home page, it says that their sublicense agreement is free. ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well for the lazy ones READ the article called Linux article section Copyright and naming

"...the Linux Mark Institute sent out a number of letters to distribution vendors requesting that a fee be paid for the use of the name, and a number of companies have complied."

Midnightcrow (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Not able to read your mind about exactly what prose you're referring to" != "lazy".
So I read the section, and it even has a cite, a 2005 article, which does indeed say that LMI did at that time collect royalties. However, as Jam pointed out above, the LMI website itself says "Our new sublicensing agreement is Free [...] Perpetual [...] Worldwide". Presumably this is "new" since the time of the 2005 article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, did you (Midnightcrow) read sentence preceding the one you quoted?

'[Torvalds] was bound in 2005 by United States trademark law to take active measures to enforce the trademark.'

I don't know anything about trademark law in the US, but presumably paying a fee to use the trademark is part of it. Therefore the LMI had to request the companies paid the fee. Also notice that it didn't say they had to, but were requested to. ~~ [Jam][talk] 17:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If the license is "free" who pays the cost of the license procedure? How does the LMI finance itself? The LMI website says ONLY approved requests will get a "free" license. Midnightcrow (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe through the Linux Foundation, which the LMI is part of? ~~ [Jam][talk] 17:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
When they say that only approved requests get a free sublicense, this does not mean that "unapproved" requests must then pay; it means they're not approved for a sublicense at all.
It appears you're grasping for a conspiracy where none exists. LMI used to charge a fee for sublicenses because LMI was at that time self-funding. Now that they are part of the Linux Foundation, they no longer need to charge for sublicenses, and they do not. This is presumably considered a reasonable expense related to the foundation's charter, which is to promote Linux.
Note that according to the LMI, most uses of the word "Linux" fall under fair use, and do not require a sublicense at all. For example, if I created a new distro called just, say, "Naibed", and said in descriptive materials that it is derived from Linux, I would not need a sublicense. The only time I would need a (free) sublicense is if I used the word Linux "as part of [my] own trademark or brand identifier for Linux-based software goods or services".[1]. This would presumably apply whether I called it "Naibed Linux" or "Naibed GNU/Linux," so I'm not sure why this topic is relevant to the thread at hand in any event.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Many of the editors who want to force the use of the word Linux to refer to software that is not even part of the Linux kernel at all have never shown that they are not part of the LMI or what you now mention the Linux foundation. This is very relevant because there are many in wikipedia who have been editing articles in a way to lead people to believe that they should use the word Linux to call software that has no relationship with the Linux kernel. It makes sense that if you lead the public to believe that a certain software that is not Linux should be called Linux they will at one point want to use that "Linux" word. Then they will find that they will need to ask for a license that until now you have failed to prove is absolutely free in all cases. What is your relationship to the Linux foundation or the LMI? Who finances the Linux foundation then?

Midnightcrow (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no relationship with LMI or the Linux Foundation, and the first I heard about both of these was when I saw your post here. From what I understand (in reading the Linux Foundation web pages), it is members who sign up to the Linux Foundation who finance it. Presumably also the finance from trademarking was also accumulated into this before it became free (again, that is from reading the LMI website).
From what I understand (and from what has been said by NapoliRoma), unless you want to trademark something with the name "Linux" in it, you do not need to have anything to do with the LMI - all you need to do is attribute the name Linux to Linus.
If you still want to know if the sublicense is completely free, then ask the LMI as they are better suited to answer such questions than we are. ~~ [Jam][talk] 03:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This particular licensing debate is not relevant to the Linux vs GNU/Linux naming controversy. What the thing called Linux is, is the point. Not who owns a trademark. Paul Beardsell (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is quite relevant. Anyone can edit the articles in Wikipedia to serve his own interests. In this case people who work or profit from the spread of the use of the word Linux such as members of the Linux Mark Institute and the Linux Foundation. The fact that some people like you who write in wikipedia are so quick to dismiss this argument without much further serious discussion shows that you fear that the non technical general public will start to realize this this can be indeed a valid reason. The objective is to mislead the general public to believe that software that has no relationship at all with the work that led to the creation of a single program program, in this case, the so called "Linux" kernel, should also be called and known as "Linux". Linus Torvalds should not get the credit for the creation of the hundreds of programs that make up an operating system to which he did not contribute a single line of code. To create his kernel program known as Linux he did in fact need to use a program from the GNU project: the GNU C compiler. In this sense then we could say that the kernel known as "Linux" exists only thanks to the GNU project. Then it is correct to use the name GNU/Linux. If we had to choose the most important element then we should just use the word GNU since it is thanks to that GNU C compiler that that kernel program came into existence in the first place.
:Midnightcrow (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we have this principle "discuss the idea not the person", furthermore nobody is required to declare anything, and even though people did that out of good faith you still continue this discussion with "memebers of the Linux Mark Institute" without any base. Please stop doing this. Second of all not all the programs compile with GCC need to be named GNU/something. Third, the kernel is the most complicated piece of software in an operating system (some people in the filed call kernel THE operating system) and many OSes are called after the kernel, not after the userland tools or compiler. Third, this discussion is irrelevant (I provided arguments only to show that your ideas are not without counter-argements) but the point here is that we call things not how they "should" be called, but how they are actually called. (no matter how incorrect you and other people think that is)... this is all. Repeting this everytime a GNU/person happens to stumble on this page, is painful and disruptive, read the frikin' archive, it's PAGES full with your kind of arguments, you don't bring anything new here. -- AdrianTM (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey AdrianTM...
Cool down!! I can see your blood pressure rising when you get so upset because more people realize that indeed the right way to call the OS we are talking about is GNU or GNU/Linux and not just Linux. It is normal that if people new to the OS just see the word "Linux" they will use only this word. But later as they learn more about the OS they realize that in fact using only this word to refer to the entire OS when indeed Linux is just the kernel is not right at all. It is wrong because it leads people to believe that the whole of the system was created by Linus Torvalds otherwise why to call the entire OS after him? The mere use of the word Linux fails to bring to mind any idea about the system other than make people think about Linus Torvalds. At least the people who came up with the word GNU tried to convey meaning into that word and make a reference to UNIX whereas Mr. Torvalds was just trying to inflate his ego by presenting himself as a guy greater than real life who all by himself created this OS. Or course technical people would never believe that but it is the non technical public and some business people which will suffer the most by being denied access to the true origins and nature of this OS basically that it is FREE!! AdrianTM are a guy who makes a living from selling your programming services? Are you angry because as Richard Stallman originator of GNU has said programmers would make less money when costumers have access to non proprietary software? If you go to schools where they offer courses named "Linux" the prices are usually VERY high. Books named "Linux" are not so cheap either. Would the General public be willing to pay those inflated prices if they knew they could get the software and the documentation FREE of charge from the Internet? This is the REAL reason why so many people here in Wikipedia want to hide the fact that the OS is GNU and that it is FREE and that you pay only if you want to get some actual programming service or hand holding service. It is the dislike for the words FREE and FREEDOM that led to the creation of the "open source" initiative. The objective was to name things in a way that would still allow people writing programs to make as much money as possible. Using words such as "Linux" and "open source" allows you to charge more money than if you were using the words GNU and FREE SOFTWARE.
Lightedbulb (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"The objective is to mislead the general public to believe that software that has no relationship at all with the work that led to the creation of a single program program [..] should also be called and known as "Linux"."
Do you really think that the general public cares about the difference between GNU, Linux and GNU/Linux? No! The only people that seem to care are the conspiracy theorists that come up with all these crazy reasons about why people call it "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux", or the "Linux" folks arguing why we shouldn't give GNU all the credit in favour of X.org/KDE/Mozilla/Sun etc etc.
That said, they'll continue to fight about it so I really don't see what the point is of even saying this... ~~ [Jam][talk] 08:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Because you don't care doesn't mean that the general public doesn't care. Of course that people who do not have any need to find free alternative operating systems to Microsoft Windows will not care what name you use. But those who seek will demand that accurate information be given to them. Once a novice seeks to know and understand this GNU/Linux operating system he will have no problem in accepting the use of this name even if initially he was exposed only to the word Linux to refer to the complete system.
Midnightcrow (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
"Once a novice seeks to know and understand this GNU/Linux operating system he will have no problem in accepting the use of this name even if initially he was exposed only to the word Linux to refer to the complete system."
As I've said to others before, do not begin to assume that I know nothing about GNU or Linux (or even GNU/Linux). Until you know me, please do not assume such things.
I suppose I am a novice, but from what I've seen about the Linux vs GNU/Linux debate, it seems completely ridiculous to me. And as other editors have said (before, now and will no doubt in the future), Linux is the most commonly known name. For Richard Stallman and the GNU to claim so much credit by demanding that "GNU/" must be prepended to any usage of the word Linux is preposterous in my opinion. Has anyone every considered that it should be perhaps Linux/GNU (since presumably the kernel is slightly more important that the userland tools)? ~~ [Jam][talk]16:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to Lightedbulb's rant, mostly because is a rant, also because he was already blocked for being a malicious sockpuppet. I just want to respond to Jam. The issues here in Wikipedia is not about using the "correct" name (there's no such thing by the way), the issue here is about using the name that has the most references, Linux is that name. Case closed. I wish... GNU/Sockpuppeteers like Lightedbulb will show up again and reopen the discussion foaming at their mouth about the "right name" even if 20 pages of talk archives are about the same issue... oh well... -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
AdrianTM, I don't seem to remember saying Linux was the "correct" name, just the most common (aka the one with most references) - if I did, then I meant the most common :). However, I know exactly what you mean, and as I said, I really can't be bothered fighting this battle any longer... ~~ [Jam][talk] 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Midnightcrow - sockpuppet?

On another point, is it only me, or does Midnightcrow seem to have a similar kind of "rant" style to Bald Eeagle and Lightedbulb (both of which have been blocked now for sockpuppetry)? ~~ [Jam][talk] 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a checkuser is in order, care to do the honors? -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked into it, but it seems you cannot submit a checkuser without them being in the "sockpuppet process", so I've started a case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bald Eeagle (2nd nomination). ~~ [Jam][talk] 08:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, that's what I meant, sorry I'm not versed into Wikipedia bureaucracy. -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither am I :). Anyway, the request has gone in so we'll see what happens. ~~ [Jam][talk] 09:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Well get used to it. It is obvious that when a dispute is not settled the discussions will continue for a long time as they should. Many people like you would like that no one expresses a point of view contrary to yours and then you will consider that as proof of agreement with your ideas and expressions in this case that "Linux" is the right word to use to call the UNIX like system that uses the GNU userland programs in conjunction with a kernel program known as "Linux". To call the entire operating system just "Linux" may be popular among many people but that doesn't mean that an Encyclopedia is forced to do the same. An Encyclopedia is not just a place where "popular" ideas or words find an echo and non "popular" names are not mentioned at all. If we followed that flawed logic then we would never mention in an encyclopedia the scientific names of plants or animals for example because they are not "popular" words. What kind of Encyclopedia is that that only uses "popular" words? A true Encyclopedia has to seek and spread the truth and be objective when describing the topics covered. It should strive to be as much scientific as possible.

Since the main components at work in the operating system some like to call "Linux" come from the GNU project and that without these GNU programs even the creation of the "Linux" kernel itself would never have been possible it is correct to use the name GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system using GNU components plus the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel owes its existence to the GNU C compiler. Without it the so called "Linux" kernel would have never existed. Many of you here say that we should call the entire thing Linux because it is thanks to Linux according to you that this operating system became popular. But then would Linux have existed without GNU? Could Linus Torvalds have created HIS kernel without the GNU C compiler? Wouldn't it be right to say then that GNU is the right name for the entire operating system because without the previous existence of GNU Torvalds could have never created (with the help of a lot of programmers collaborating over the Internet) his kernel? Besides that if we took out all the GNU programs and just kept the "Linux" kernel would we still have a REAL and useful operating system? Would it still be "popular"???

Midnightcrow (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The kind of encyclopedia that uses 'popular words' is this one. Please take a look at the naming conventions. Also, just to point out that the kernel can be compiled using other c compilers, so the GNU C compiler is not as important as you make out.-Localzuk(talk) 12:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You are mistaken, Lcalzuk. The naming conventions are mainly about the lemmas. And they are never absolute but always require weighting. --mms (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Exceptions to the rule apply when looking at things such as scientific subjects, or when there are official names. This particular subject is one which doesn't have an official title. The only organisation that thinks it does is GNU and they aren't authoritative. We can only, therefore, go with the most common usage. Whichever you lok at it, more people and organisations call the OS Linux. I have personally disregarded arguments from both Linus Torvalds and GNU as neither of them is authoritative and both have bias.-Localzuk(talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)