Talk:Linux/Archive 8

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 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 →

Contents

£inux?

I'm curious as to what the meaning behind this is... is it an alternative political spelling? RN 21:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably an encapsulation of some of the pro-Mickey$oft FUD which likes to claim (in Enterprise terms) that Linux has a higher TCO (which is, naturally, utter bollocks). Cain Mosni 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That's what I thought also - but I don't recall that symbol. £inux doesn't seem as bad as Linsucks or Linsux though :). RN 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe those pages redirect to Linux article. -- AdrianTM 03:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
WELCOME TO MY WORLD :D RN 03:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
What's the procedure to delete those redirections? I can't believe anyone would honestly type Linuxsucks or £inux to get information about Linux -- AdrianTM 03:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I just nominated Linsucks and Linsux for deletion and you can chime in at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion (that also has info on how to nominate future redirects as well). I went ahead and redirected £inux to Alternative_political_spelling to keep inline with M$ and others. RN 05:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "(also know as GNU/Linux)" becuse it should say "wrongly known as GNU/Linux", which is unnecesary if there is a History of the Linux, and -there is also- true philosophy (not beliefs or opinions based on relativity) on what Linux is, despite the fights about Kernel, OS and Distros. Strictly speaking the GNU part in all this is a mere set of utilities and the gnome which don't alter the OS nature of Linux. Below is a more broad analisys of the whole subject. Just avoiding mixing non critical tools from GNU with the true functioning soul of the system, will ease things and will avoid fights, except for those who keep thinking that GNU is the soul of Linux, when it's not (where do they leave Apache, MySQL, PHP, Perl and other multiplatform elements that -by the way- happen to run ALSO on Linux?). Apache, MySQL, PHP and other important elements for a Server don't run on top of any GNU thing, GNU is not a platform for anything, though the Kernel actually IS the platform on which many multiplatform tools (like GNU's) run! GNU should avoid pretensions to jump on top AND BEFORE the Linux name (GNU / (and then) Linux), not happy enough with the fact that Linus liked their GPLv2 license. GNU now resembles the fly sitting on the horn of the Ox who answered the journalist asking what was the Ox doing: "WE ARE PLOUGHING" said the fly.

That's why NONE of the Distro makers produces a DISTRO GNU/Linux. They rather distribute a DISTRO Linux just, where DISTRO stands for SUSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, etc., all of which shows the fact that the Distros gather things around the Linux operating system which IS INDEED THE KERNEL, including Apache, MySQL and GNU things like gnome, bash or so. Perhaps from the point of view of FSF, they started in 1983 trying to make a Unix Like OS, they did "all" but the kernel and they adopted Linux kernel for their project, it was not Linus T. who adopted them for his kernel. Then DISTROS, gathered bits from here and there including GNU things, to make a distro. BUT from the standpoint of a distro, GNU and Apache, Perl and MySQL all rely on Linux platform=kernel=OS as gadgets running on Linux not on GNU/Linux, this is -once more- why "GNU/Linux" is a Troyan/Kidnap concept, quite far from GPL itself!!! Yes, the GNU/Linux expression goes against GPL!!. There are rights about Linux and rights about GNU, but rights about GNU/Linux are in the heads of lost people. GNU doesn't even have a GNU Linux Distro and if so, that is not the same as a GNU/Linux OS, this just does not exist.

In the same sense in the Linux_distribution article it is WRONGLY mentioned a "GNU Operating System". This OS never existed, since the GNU Hurd never worked as Linux did. If you have core, you have OS despite of more or less utilities built around. If you don't have core, it doesn't matter how many tools you have around an inexistent core, that's not an OS. GNU/Linux_naming_controversy shows again that GNU/Linux is only in Stallman's head and his frustration for not having a core for his utilities by the time Linux appeared; even if his hurd works and he forgets GNU/Linux to have HIS OWN GNU OS, there are still Distros to come like what do you like: SUSE GNU, Red Hat GNU?. There is place for all, the same way Apache and Perl found good growth thanks to Linux, which in the root made it possible for all of them to run on something, and just for that Linux is Linux not GNU/Linux or Apache/Linux. Linux is Linux= a platform, an OS. GNU will not be a platform until it has its hurd and Apache is not intended to be a platform but a multiplatform service or server. Even Stallman acknowledges that his plans were to have an OS, he did not make one, he only did the utilities. Linus did the OS, the thing that works. Stallman's wannabe attitude for what he had in mind, has to face the fact that he only did utilities despite of his final plans. Until he makes his core-hurd work, he will not have any GNU OS, and GNU/Linux is a pretentious name just, because he bears his GNU only and Linus has his Linux (and distros gather both and more). These are basic concepts of what's a platform and what runs on it. "I'm going to make a flight simulator, I already made the screen showing the pilot's cabin and windows....", yes but without the maths behind, that's not any flight simulator even though it looks like it. Energiza 19:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

solaris origins

the diagram of *X history seems to depict solaris (which i assume means sunos 2.x) as a BSD derivitive. actaully AFAIK it's an SVR4 derivitive.

- ef —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.203.239 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, Sun OS 5 is System V derived but Sun OS 4 and lower is BSD based. The conversion happened over 10 years ago, so it is more or less ancient history now. --StuffOfInterest 23:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

oops. got my nomenclature mixed up. yes in SunOS terms versions through 4.x were BSD based and 5.x are SVR4 based. there's also a notation of solaris 1.x and 2.x with 1.x refering to the BSD based systems. as i recall, the "Solaris" name originally referred to the desktop environment and some accompanying software running atop the the base operating system with solaris 1.x being that package for the BSD diriviatives and 2.x running on the newer SVR4 diriviatives. In most recent common usage i'v encountered jSunOS refers to the BSD dirivatives and Solaris refers to the SVR4 dirivatives, irrespective of desktop environment (which is now gnome anyway).

in any event, it seems to me that the diagram should be corrected. -ef

crazy idea

Let's seriously break this up, I see it was discussed but nothing came of it. This is how it should/needs to be:

  • Linux -> move to GNU/Linux, and leave Linux as a redirect back to it.
  • The disambig should go up top, same as it is now.
  • Reword this to make more clear that Linux is not the operating system.

It's too silly and genericized now. If no one objects I can start on this, sooner or later. · XP · 21:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. This is obviously an active point of debate right now.
Bill Clinton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from William Jefferson Clinton)
Linus Torvalds doesn't call it GNU/Linux. This is bigger than a Wikipedia talk page. Chris Cunningham 19:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
We'd have to give weight to what you've just posted on a Wikipedia talk page to believe that. ¦ Reisio 19:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Linux is a kernel not an operating system

Since when is "linux" an operating system? This is a common miss-conception and should be addressed in this article. GNU/Linux, whether you like it or not, is the name of the operating system while linux is the name of the kernel GNU/linux systems use. You might as well call it the "gnome operating system" or the "ifconfig operating system". To be even more accurate the operating system is actualy "ubuntu" or "slackware" which include all of the other aforementioned components.

What do others think of this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.141.243.145 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "others" think this had been debated to death already -- this is not exactly a new article. The section "Linux and the GNU Project" and the Linux (kernel) article should cover your concerns. --Haakon 21:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Debates "to death" come from lack of basic understanding and from opinion based criteria or even based on FSF info, not in knowledge of what an OS really is. You are wrong in considering "The" operating system as "GNU/Linux". FSF lists supposed 5058 packages made "under their umbrella", and the "All" packages in that link, start by not meeting that number. There is bash certainly, and ls, and other command line utilities, but there is no Apache, there is no MySQL, there is no Kernel, there is no PHP, there is no Gimp, there is no X System there in that list; there is GNOME, but no KDE which SUSE uses as its default GUI, there is no YaST from SUSE as well, which has made SUSE the most popular Distro in the last years, there is no RPM and there are not many other things in the "copyrighted" things from GNU or FSF. The kernel allows any other satellite programs to do something with the computer. Applications only connect user with the computer via the kernel. There would be the same right from these famous makers (Apache, MySQL, PHP) to call Linux KDE/Linux or PHP/Apache/MySQL/Pyton/Linux (Lamp), though they don't insist in "calling" it so, except for explanation purposes, not for naming ones. Because i.e. Apache works in several platforms (see?) (Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc). As comparison. GNU has the copyright of most if not all of the shell commands, the same way Windows has its command line interface, but Windows interaction with its kernel is independent of command line programs. Windows is an operating system DESPITE OF ITS COMMAND LINE INTERPRETER AND TOOLS, Command line utilities from GNU make a Linux-DOS_like only, NOT AN OPERATING SYSTEM. The actual operating part is the kernel, the programs around, use the kernel to make the computer to do something. Try compiling something useful and it will require the Kernel headers, otherwise you will not have a running program. Moreover, once running, the program will require from kernel functions to get to do something with the computer. This is not a battle, FSF has made it a battle by mounting their name ON TOP of the kernel's name, though they have the text for the GPL and some utilities, but not an operating system. The Kernel itself operates the computer and just as a mind exercise, try and gather tools not copyrighted by GNU, and you will very much have the same functional Linux operating system, not the GNU/Linux OS. Possibly, GNU/Linux, (more correctly then Linux/GNU or GNU Linux, like SUSE Linux or RH Linux, because the operating most important part is its core) could have been an early Distro, but not THE OS. The OS operates the computer (the kernel operates the computer). The tools operate the OS. That is known by any first grade systems student. BY PRINCIPLE, kernel is the source of whatever, call it corn, wheat, almonds. From a wheat kernel you will get pizzas, bread, tabouleh, cookies, even chips ahoy, but being the first cookie producer doesn't give you the right to call wheat Chips-Ahoy/Wheat. It's the same situation. Making tools that run with the Linux kernel doesn't give right to anyone to call it GNU/Linux. Linux is Linux and GNU is GNU only. Otherwise is like a kidnap, is like a trojan virus.

Build YOUR OWN house and then protect your roof from rain with a Du Pont chemical. Then put up with DuPont trying to hang a banner on your roof claiming that YOUR HOUSE is a DuPont/house.

See it this way: "What part of the GNU production (list of programs copyrighted by them) is key to keep Linux running as an OS? Take parts copyrighted by GNU from any Distro, and tell the world that Linux can't run anymore because you took vital parts from the OS. The OS will keep running and serving websites and dispatching databases or PHP'ing scripts without the GNU utilities. But take the kernel off and think what happens... Nothing works. Simply NOTHING works, it stalls and not precisely because of "Stallman". This proves that GNU has nothing (not even the GPL, see Linus Torvald's Original License in 1991 --a MUST to read for those ones issueing opinions without knowing the Linux project itself) to maintain Linux OS running.

Often you find IN definitions for Operating System the text "operating systems have" GUI, CLi, etc., which is way different to "Operating Systems are". You have a wallet, shoes, trousers and a hat, but you are not, not even by close (despite of your attachments to fashion) the garments and clothing. You could still do your work naked in the bathtub.

Energiza 16:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC).

Move to "Linux (OS)"

  • I propose keeping the "Linux" name for the OS, but renaming the article "Linux (OS)", just as there is "Linux (kernel)". Both pages would serve for a clearer disambiguation, and "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" could redirect to "Linux (OS)". As for the reason to use the name "Linux" for the OS (when technically no-one in his right mind can dispute that the OS is "GNU", and that Linux is just the kernel), it would be that it is a case of metonymy. It is as correct as "200 hands helped me", instead of "100 people helped me", or "clever minds worked on it", instead of "clever persons". There are metonyms so widely used, that people forget they are figures of speech, not realities. In Spanish, we say "to drink a glass", but one actually drinks the contents of a glass. It would be correct, but silly, to point it out every time one uses the expresion. Isilanes 14:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This is all just ideological squabbling. I have in fact tried to move this to Linux (operating system) before, but to be honest I don't see the point now. There's generally overwhelming support for referring to the OS as "Linux", which includes not only the author of the kernel but all but one of the combined OS's largest vendors. And this still wouldn't stop people from trolling for "the real page should be GNU/Linux", so I don't see the point any more. Chris Cunningham 09:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Our naming conventions call on us to refer to the subject matter by the most common usage. Linux is the most common name for the OS - there is no need to disambiguate it as it is already compliant with our policies on the matter.-Localzuk(talk) 17:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a red herring. The naming conventions require us to name the page by the most common name, which is indisputably "Linux" for the OS. That is separate from the question of whether we should add a parenthetical disambiguation to the title. In this case, I think that disambiguation, calling it "Linux (operating system)" in the same way that we call it "Linux (kernel)" would be a good idea. No, it wouldn't end the flame wars; nothing will, and that's not the point. The point is to make it instantly and unmistakably clear which version of the term "Linux" we are talking about here. —Steven G. Johnson 18:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
There's soemthing similar: Opera (internet suite) but that's required only because "Opera" might mean something else, while in this case when somebody looks for Linux they most likely don't look for Linux detergent... they might look for Linux kernel instead of Linux OS but that's taken care by the dab link. Also the link with GNU is made clear in the first paragraph and later on in the article so I don't think it's a problem with that either. Of course GNU trolls will still try to change the name but as long as huge majority of people will continue to can it "Linux" they will hopefully not be successful to impose their POV. So I would vote against moving the page since there is no need, however I don't have huge problems with "Linux (operating system)", maybe only that we'll have even more squables with GNU trolls instead of calming the issue. -- AdrianTM 19:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a disambig tag for that minority of users who are aware of the distinction between the kernel and the greater operating system. Taking AdrianTM's example, when the most common usage is obviously that of the greater OS, adding parenthesis "for clarity" would be like renaming Opera to Opera (dramatic art form). Chris Cunningham 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not a good analogy because operatic music and the Opera web browser have virtually nothing in common, and it's unlikely that someone searching for one would be interested in the other, and moreover operatic music is vastly older and more common than the browser. Here, we have two things with the same name that are closely related, and both are commonly referenced in the mainstream press (and the kernel is, in fact, older), and the fact that (in your words) only a "minority of users" is even aware of the distinction is even more reason to be clear about it. —Steven G. Johnson 20:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but it's not like we can't talk anything about Linux kernel in this article, right? Just that we have a specific article that treats the kernel in more detail. Again, I'm not decided, I don't see anything wrong with current name I don't see any major problem with Linux "(operating system)" Somehow I think this is a non-issue, if someone wants the article about the kernel they will click on the dab link (it really makes no much differnce since they will most likely be redirected from "linux" anyway) -- AdrianTM 21:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Putting it in the title is clearer than putting it in the italicized redirect text. It makes it instantly clear that (a) this article is about the OS, not the kernel and that (b) there is more than one thing called "Linux" so the reader should make sure they know which one they want to know about. Furthermore, the title is more visible in, e.g. search-engine listings, to help people decide what link to click *before* reading the article. What is the argument against moving to Linux (operating system)? The only relevant argument I've seen so far is the unsubstantiated speculation that this will somehow encourage more flamewars. —Steven G. Johnson 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The argument against is that it is unnecessary nitpicking which only encourages further agenda trolling. I'm worried that the eventual "compromise" on this route is to have a search for "Linux" return a disambig page rather than this one. And once again, the distinction between "Linux as a kernel" and "Linux as an operating system" is a construction of those who wish the name to be confined to the kernel; it's certainly not a concept universal to contemporary or historical OSes. I'd argue against the parentheses on the kernel article as well, but I'm not in the mood for another revert war with the editor responsible. Chris Cunningham 23:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Chris, this is unnecessary nitpicking, it's pretty clear from the article what's about and it's also very easy for people who want to get to Linux kernel page from dab link, not to mention that there's a "See also: Linux (kernel)" link down in the Linux page. Now... maybe we should direct our energies to something more productive.... -- AdrianTM 23:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am astonished to see you write that the distinction between "Linux as a kernel" and "Linux as an operating system" is a construction of those who wish the name to be confined to the kernel. If you are saying that the kernel "Linux" and the Unix-like operating system "Linux" are the same thing (the distinction is a "construction"), then why do we have two separate articles? And if they are different, as most people seem to agree (and this is why we have separate articles), then the difference is not an artificial "construction" or "nitpicking". It is frustrating when you resort to such pointless name-calling, combined with your continual conflation of the issue of flamewars over the naming with simple requests that the article clearly inform the reader what it is about. I have consistently argued that this article should be called "Linux", as that is the most common name, long before either of you edited this article. All I suggest is that it distinguish itself from the kernel of the same name as clearly as possible. Apparently, you disagree; if you truly think that there is no difference, that explains a lot. —Steven G. Johnson 01:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your support to my suggestion, Steven. I really see no point in not making a "Linux (OS)" page, then redirecting "Linux" to that page. That way, "Linux" = "Linux OS" is defaulted (as an "overwhelming majority" of people expect), but the kernel and OS meanings are clearly differentiated (and one can link directly to "Linux (OS)", without having to link to "Linux" and expect it defaults to the OS). Imagine tomorrow the Hurd kernel hits the street, and the Linux users are given the choice of installing Hurd or Linux, just as GNOME or KDE. Maybe that would support changing the default "Linux" page to "Linux (kernel)", with another page for the now-not-so-unanimously-used Linux OS. If that were done, all the old links to "Linux" (created with Linux OS in mind), would now point to the Linux kernel! Creating a "Linux (OS)" page now, clearly removes this eventuality. If you link to "Linux (OS)", the link will always point to what you intend, unlike the current "Linux" link, which points to whatever "the overwhelming majority" considers Linux should account for. Isilanes 14:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I fail to follow your logic, if there would be a working HURD kernel, it would still not change anything in the Linux world, people and distro maintainers will still call the OS "Linux" and there will still be a "linux kernel" (people would call the HURD based system either GNU or GNU/HURD as they call it now, but that doesn't change anything about Linux) If we are to talk about far-fetched hypotheses (HURD will not be ready tomorrow), let's imagine Kernel developers getting pissed on FSF and their GPLv3 and switching to BSD tools instead of GNU. BTW, I hope HURD will be ready soon so GNU trolls will leave Linux pages alone. I clearly don't support changing the name to "Linux OS" if "Linux" doesn't redirect automatically to it (I guess that's the main point of your proposal, to have linux redirect to a dab page, do I get it right?) -- AdrianTM 14:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that's exactly the point. Which is why I firmly oppose any name changes; they just lend strength to arguments to have Linux redirect somewhere else, thus pushing the "just-a-kernel" point of view. Chris Cunningham 16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • My proposal is not to have "Linux" redirect to a disambiguation page, but directly to "Linux (OS)". I wholeheartedly concur in that most people looking for "Linux" at the Wikipedia expect to find the OS they call "Linux"... and so be it! But sacrificing correctness to please the masses, however overwhelming those masses are, is not the way to go for an encyclopedia. My proposal takes back a bit of correctness (not all of it, but, oh well) to the issue, at a zero price for the people unaware of the "GNU/Linux" thing. Moreover, to clarify my point above, I will address AdrianTM's words: he says that if Hurd where viable, "Linux people" would call their OS "Linux", and the "Hurd OS" would be called GNU, or GNU/Hurd. How incorrect! Did anyone change a name when the LILO->GRUB transition was made? Nope. When Xserver->Xorg? Nope. KDE/GNOME/Xfce? Nope. The "OS" has been, and will be, the very same one (Linux). The point has to be emphasized that the kernel is just another software package. No more, and no less than any other. If today I run Debian (with a Linux kernel), and tomorrow (metaphorically speaking) I reinstall Debian with Hurd for a kernel, instead of Linux, will I start telling my friends I run "GNU"? For God's sake, no! I will tell them I still use Linux, namely a distro called Debian. Fancy part is, I would use the Linux kernel no more. And if a new name will be coined, it should cover OSs running both Hurd and Linux, because they would still be a single OS. That name could have been "GNU" from the begining (GNU's Not Unix->it just points out it's Unix-like, but not Unix, which will be true for ever and ever), but "Linux" caught on (the name of a kernel which might stay longer or shorter, as KDE, LILO, OpenOffice.org, vi, or any other package). No point in preaching in the dessert for a GNU/Linux name, I agree. But let's be a bit more rigorous, and have two pages: "Linux (kernel)" and "Linux (OS)", with "just Linux" pointing to whatever pleases the masses (evidently that would be "Linux (OS)" nowadays). Isilanes 17:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"If today I run Debian (with a Linux kernel), and tomorrow (metaphorically speaking) I reinstall Debian with Hurd for a kernel, instead of Linux, will I start telling my friends I run "GNU"? For God's sake, no! I will tell them I still use Linux, namely a distro called Debian." -- You should tell them that you use Debian and use the name they use for the product, either Debian GNU or Debian GNU/HURD, at most you could say that you use a Unix/Linux kind of OS. Same as if you use KDE, OpenOffice.org or vi in BSD you would never say that you use "Linux". You propose to be more rigorous, but I don't see that in your logic. And no, you can't have Linux OS without the Linux kernel. -- AdrianTM 17:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why should I call "GNU" the "GNU/Hurd" system? Following your logic, it would be just "Hurd". Me: "Look, boys, I am running Hurd!" Them: "C'mon, who you wanna tease? It's plain old Linux". Anyone would see a bigger difference if I switched from Xfce to KDE, but still call it "Linux". My logic is that the OS is the same, whether I keep the Linux kernel, or dump it for Hurd, just as it is the same, whether I keep Xfce, or dump it for KDE. So, by your logic if I adopted Hurd, I would have to change the name of the OS I use, because (as you so kindly point out, thanks) it would be ridiculous to keep calling it "Linux", when no Linux is to be seen in it. By a reductio ad absurdum, if I call the OS by the name of its kernel, but if I change the kernel it still is the same OS, I would have to change the name of something that is still the same as before. The only escape your logic has, is to claim that changing the kernel changes the OS. Then, of course, I'd claim that swapping Xfce for KDE, or vi for emacs, also changes the OS... which makes for another reductio ad absurdum. The point of what I call "rigor", is that when someone looks for "Linux" in the Wikipedia, she should not have the feeling that "Linux" is the name of the OS (because the main page is "Linux"), but that "Linux" is just the name a whole lot of people atribute to the OS (because it redirects to it). Isilanes 18:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how smart your friends are if they would call a HURD OS: "Linux". The point is to use the name that the kernel developers, distro maintainers and most of the people use, in case of HURD kernel devs call it HURD and the OS GNU or GNU/HURD, distro maintainers call it GNU/HURD (Debian) and other will probably call it either GNU or GNU/HURD, people will also call it one of these variants, nobody will call it Linux. BTW, Linux is not just the name "people "attribute" to the OS (because it redirects to it)" Linux is the name used by most of the Linux distributions most of the newspapers, is the name used in search engines, etc. the only people that use GNU/Linux are the ones that are politically motivated. -- AdrianTM 18:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Actualy, AdrianTM, I could see some people calling a GNU/HURD system Linux. But only in their own ignorance.
Dustin 19:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, namecalling my friends is your last resort, AdrianTM? I agree with Dustin: anyone (I used the example of "my friends" metaphorically speaking, as I used "tomorrow" for a Hurd release date. Sadly, you failed to understand either) could use "Linux" for a GNU/Hurd system, out of their own ignorance... just as they do now for GNU/Linux!! The point is that pro-GNU taliban thinking won't help here. We have to be pragmatic; the term "Linux" (for the OS) is here to stay, and I will not oppose to it. I even support it, as a case of metonymy! (as I mention in my first coment). However, in the name of what "political motivation" can "Linux (OS)" be opposed? "Linux" is the name people attribute to a OS that was developed by the GNU movement. Linus Torvalds contributed to it, as millions others. More than any single other, maybe, but he is a simple contributor, not the creator of the OS. There is no single "creator", of course, but there is a movement in its conception, and it is the GNU movement. If I were to invent football, and develop a sphere I'd call "football ball", then someone invented a way to inflate it (invention without which the football ball is unusable, as GNU without kernel), and people, newspapers and the Pope himself started to call the ball "that inflated thingie", it'd still be a "football ball", no matter how catchy the "that inflated thingie" name was. Moreover, calling the ball "football ball" stresses its nature, as a tool to play a game (with the feet). Similarly, GNU stresses the fact that the OS was developed as a Unix-like system, but Free (this goes implied, in the GNU/FSF relationship). You say that most distros, newspapers, search engines... use the name "Linux". However, that is not a reason in itself. Yep, most people can be wrong. An argument of popularity is not valid. A reductio ad absurdum is, so please address the one I make above. And please, notice that I am being reasonable, and admiting that having "Linux" redirect to "Linux (OS)" would be the best thing to to, in the name of pragmatism. Isilanes 18:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you post includes some basic reasoning mistakes, let me post here what posted on Talk:GNU/Linux_naming_controversy I think some people can't get some very simple facts. If you use free code you are free to call your resulting product whatever you like, it's not like the original author can came and claim "hey you use my code, you should give me credit", sorry man, but it's not your code anymore, it's free and I get to call my product, there's no requirement in GPL to call derived products in one way or another, if you want credit then you should use a different license that demands credit (although credit is usually shown by giving credit to the person(s) who wrote the initial code, not by keeping the name of the product, which, by the way has been modified in the meantime)... that's exactly Linus' point when he said that FSF get to name their OS however they want if they take Linux kernel and use it in GNU OS, they can even call it only "GNU" if they choose so, that's exactly what Linus did, he took free parts from GNU, put his Linux kernel and named that Linux OS other people took that and modified, added stuff and they named the resulting product: "Fedora Linux", "RedHat Linux", "SUSE Linux", "Ubuntu" and so on, except Debian who chose GNU/Linux (that's their right), people in general call that "Linux", that's how most of the people call it, that's how developers call it, only RMS insists "hey, give credit to our project", now, he's right, he deserve credit, many times Linus said that he couldn't do it without GNU project, however Linus gets to name his product however he likes and people should understand that it's his product even if he used 30% free code, or 99.99%, or even if he used 100% free code, that's the nature of free code you take it and you make your own project out of it, it's really bad form from people who contributed to the initial code to come back to you and try to force you to name your product when that's not required by the license in order to get free publicity out of it -- that's really an attack on the freedom of the code, I mean they should decide if it's really free, or if it comes with additional "moral" requirements (basically free advertising) included. It's also irrelevant if some few people around think they know what people should do and try to push their POV down the throat of the majority of people, including the Linux developers and distro mainainers. -- AdrianTM 21:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, I agree 100% with that! Show me the part where I say otherwise. Yes, people is using their Freedom to call the OS the way they like, and that's fair. Stallman is not saying otherwise, and neither am I. The only point I want to make is that from my POV (and technically speaking), the name "Linux" is unfortunate, or at least inaccurate. Not illegitimate, of course. If it were, Stallman would not be just preaching for the use of of "GNU/Linux". He'd be suing whoever misnamed the OS, and winning the cases. I will repeat till I get blue in the face that I do not oppose to the use of "Linux" for the OS (anyone spell "metonymy"?), and I even use this term myself. However, if you support Linus' right to call GNU/Linux the way he wishes, please do so with Stallman, too. I don't see how Stallman is pushing anything down anyone's throat, and much less how critizicing Stallman for preaching the use of the term "GNU/Linux" is any less attack on the Freedom of the software than Stallman critizicing the use of the term "Linux". Anyway, this is not the point. The point is to move "Linux" to "Linux (OS)", and make the former a redirect to the latter. This way, I repeat, one can make a clearer distinction to what she refers to when linking to the Wikipedia page for "Linux". I would imagine that Torvalds would be disappointed to look for "Linux" in the Wikipedia and see that it defaults to a OS he contributed to, instead of to the kernel he created from scratch. If the page is a redirect, instead of the main page, we will be alleviating his sorrow. Do it for him, move to "Linux (OS)" for Torvalds :^) Isilanes 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that there's a problem with the current name and that AdrianTM doesn't know how to read English, but I don't care for "Linux (OS)" at all. ¦ Reisio 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Reisio, please refrain from personal attacks, they are not conducive to a comfortable environment.
Moving this article to anything like Linux (OS) is pedantic and nothing more than POV pushing an attempt to eventually turn the original page (this one) into a disambiguation page in order to further the POV that Linux is just the kernel and the OS is GNU.
It is a pointless venture and I oppose it 100%.-Localzuk(talk) 21:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Moving the article to "Linux (OS)" is no more pedantic than the current setup is idiotic. First, "the POV that Linux is just the kernel"!? Below what stone have you been for the last 20 years? "Linux" is just the kernel. Actually, not even that. The kernel Linus Torvalds made was going to be named Freax (see Linus Torvalds). The very name "Linux" caught on by chance. Let's not manipulate history and facts, please. I can be reasonable, and agree that the name "Linux" is widely used to refer to a whole OS (which it is not), and I even use the term myself. I agree that preaching the use of the term "GNU/Linux" is a bit too "un-pragmatic", as it is to preach that politicians stop lying, corporations defrauding, or banks stealing. We have to make do with what we have, and that is the innaccurate-but-reasonable name "Linux". Second, you infer that moving to "Linux (OS)" is "nothing more than POV pushing an attempt to eventually turn this page into a disambiguation one". This is but a poor slippery slope argument, fallacious at its best. Critizice this movement as it is, and if I ever propose the disambiguation (which I explicitly said I don't agree with), critizice that, then. Isilanes 11:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
"Reisio, please refrain from personal attacks, they are not conducive to a comfortable environment."
Neither is someone constantly arguing about something without reading (at least not successfully) others' input. It is my opinion that AdrianTM does not understand English very well, there's no way around it.
"Moving this article to anything like Linux (OS) is pedantic and nothing more than POV pushing an attempt to eventually turn the original page (this one) into a disambiguation page in order to further the POV that Linux is just the kernel and the OS is GNU."
...I'm sorry? AFAICT, originally _this_ page _was_ a disambiguation page that said "The term Linux most strictly refers to the Linux kernel". Please do not waste people's time with idle claims. ¦ Reisio 21:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If you think it is a waste of time, then don't edit here and leave it to people who think it isn't an idle claim. Simple really. Your uncivil language is not going to help this discussion. Please leave it at the door before commenting.
Just because this article was once a disambig page doesn't mean it should be. Linux refers, most commonly, to the OS - there is no need to define this within the title. There is no need to do any forwarding. I have not seen a valid reason to do this.-Localzuk(talk) 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
"leave it to people who think it isn't an idle claim"
Thought doesn't enter into it. Your claim was at best idle; to be more explicit, it was completely and utterly contrary to well-documented fact. ¦ Reisio 21:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Critizice this movement as it is, and if I ever propose the disambiguation (which I explicitly said I don't agree with), critizice that, then."

I vote against because I don't think it's necessary. We talk in this page both about Linux kernel and about the operating system Linux or GNU/Linux or GNU/Linux/BSD/X/KDE/GNOME or however people want to call it, we do have a more detailed article about kernel. There's no need for a "OS" specification because even though there are other things called "Linux": a detergent and an asteroid, the main use for "Linux" is this: operating system, there's no need to make it clear(er) we talk about "operating system" when the first sentence of the article clearly says: "Linux (also known as GNU/Linux) is a Unix-like computer operating system." Unnecessarily move, unecessarily discussion, I end up here my part of it with my vote. -- AdrianTM 11:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)