Talk:Linux distribution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the Linux WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Linux, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Linux distribution as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] The real reason behind the push to use the word Linux?

Could this be the REAL motivation to use the word "Linux"???

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

And the next comes from the 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) 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What you are quoting means that a payment has to be made anyway and that this payment will not take place only if Linux Mark Institute "approves" that a "free" license is deserved. Midnightcrow (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the Linux Mark Institute article to mention that sublicensing originally involved a nominal fee, but is now free.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you show an official LMI document that declares that they do not charge any money for any kind of license? If it is "free" why do organizations need to ask for a license to use the word Linux? If LMI charges no money how do they finance themselves? Who pays the cost of this "licensing" procedure?
Midnightcrow (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could avoid cross-posting on the same topic by continuing this discussion on the Linux talk page. ~~ [Jam][talk] 17:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The topic is relevant because we are talking about the use of the word "Linux".
Midnightcrow (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is relevant, but there is no need to have two copies of the same discussion on two separate talk pages. Please can we keep it to the Linux talk page for simplicity. ~~ [Jam][talk] 03:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linux vs GNU/Linux

2004-05-31 23:45, Hi David Gerard

You seem to have removed all the clarifications of the previously vague text. Encyclopedia's should be impartial and correct. You have put back all the confused use of "Linux", and removed spelling/grammar corrections. Really the Linux distributions entry should be clear about what it is and impartial to any of your leanings. The version you have reverted to is an umbrella description which could be read as matching more than it in fact does. The text should reflect correct and actual use of the term, including any that others may consider incorrect; it just should not blot out either/or as it does mostly at present.

Ok, and for the other minor revisions you removed:

eg -> e.g. ("eg" is just incorrectly spelt, e.g. is the abbreviation of latin "exampli gratia" and should be written "e.g." see OED for reference please.)

predetermined -> pre-determined

preconfigure -> pre-configure (requires hyphen as conjoined words)

PCs -> IBM compatible PCs (PCs is an abbreviation of "Personal Computers", this case only refers to IBM compatible PCs. Not Apple PCs for example. So presently )


"..targeted for China." -> ".. targeted at the Chinese market." (grammar is simply wrong)


In the Xandros section: commercial -> proprietary (Are you unaware that GNU/Linux is typically commercial so the "commercial" point is irrelevant, the relevant point is that it is PROPRIETARY commercial software. There is no point emphasising a pointless piece of information.)


cooperation -> co-operation (requires hyphen as conjoined words)


If you hold some position of seniority here please consider putting my clarifications back in. At least consider the grammatical and spelling revisions if you are intent on the "Linux" use being unsuitable as present.

Glad to see you did not revert my Proprietary software revision.

My comments in this post are intended to be polite, please do not consider my explanations patronising.

Cheers, now3d

I don't hold a position of editorial seniority; there isn't any such thing. However, the Linux to GNU/Linux stuff is clearly partisanism and POV-pushing. Please reread Talk:Linux and Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy. And NPOV. In English, "Linux" is far and away the most common name for what you (and I) would prefer to be called "GNU/Linux"; pretending it isn't would not (to my mind) be appropriate.
Typos: "eg" you're right on, the others I think are arguable either way. I'll have a look through - David Gerard 13:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've had a go. The facts seem more or less in order (I could dispute a few bits), but the whole article is really badly written and needs serious rewriting by someone who's a good writer in English. I'll make an attempt later, but anyone else who wants a go is of course welcome ...
In the distro list, I've attempted to avoid Linux vs GNU/Linux by sticking to the word "distribution", and only included one or the other when it's part of the name or when GNU is actually optional (does Linux from Scratch still tell you how to use BusyBox and uClibc, for instance?).
Further work on this article is desperately needed, and I mean a lot more than tweaks of hyphenation - David Gerard 16:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for applying those gramatical revisions. I just added co-operation. Regards, User:Now3d


[edit] Jimbo Wales on GNU/Linux as the correct naming convention.

"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)

Lightedbulb (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article move protected so that it can't be given the correct name? Lurker (said · done) 13:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] Alternate Definition for Distribution

When talking on the #gentoo channel on freenode, I found out that many gentoo ops concider small package collections (or even ebuild collections) and repositories linux distributions in their own right (e.g. they say breakmygentoo is a linux distribution). That doesnt sound right to me. What are your thoughts? --[User:Hackeron|Hackeron] 14:33, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"An alternate meaning of 'distribution', used by some Gentoo ops on IRC, is any repository, small package collection, or even ebuild collection." Doesn't look like the best of reference sources to me, no ... I've never heard this usage either. Is it documented somewhere more solid? - David Gerard 14:50, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It is to some extent, the op has posted a reply on a thread I started: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=1241331
"The topic or post you requested does not exist". - David Gerard 20:57, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, link pasted wrong: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=185336
Reading that, it looks like his idiosyncratic usage, rather than even being jargon within Gentoo - David Gerard 21:49, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Of course, this is an idiosyncratic usage, although by definition "distribution" could include all of these things and many others. However, they are still not Linux distributions, which is a distribution of a complete system rather than a distribution of software that runs on Linux - Centrx 21:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of distributions

Should this really be a list of all Linux distributions, which it is fast becoming as many are added to the list? Instead, this purpose is better served by categories, possibly with a link to the appropriate category in section "Related articles", only leaving here a list of the most famous Linux distributions or, better yet, no list at all. Distributions that are relevant to the discussion of the article may be linked within its text. - Centrx 21:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suppose, then, that because there are no objections, I will implement this, so there will be no list in this article, and the articles of the items in the list will be properly categorized... - Centrx 01:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that the List of Linux Distributions is better left as a seperate article, as it's already a bit long. Siraf 23:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular distros

The data I have puts the most talked about distro as Knoppix right now. For the mainstream Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake as you'd expect and also of course Debian is huge. Ask a South American and they'll tell you 'Conectiva' .. but as a distro employee I'm not changing the page myself for obvious reasons AlanCox

[edit] Gentoo more pacakages than debian?

At any moment in time, the number of packages in gentoo and debian will vary. The people maintaining Gentoo packages can be fairly lazy with ebuilds (to do with difference in procedure and technical design between gentoo and debian) , so that, with all other things being equal, gentoo would have more packages per Mythical_Man_Month than debian.

At any point in time, either debian or gentoo may have more packages, and debian may well have more developers.

I don't intend starting a holy war here :-) Kim Bruning 10:34, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Eh, what? What's the point? The available Debian packages can be fairly easily counted, and the number is fairly exact and doesn't fluctuate much (generally it rises slowly). Can the available Gentoo packages be counted with any degree of consistency? If not, is there at least an approximation? Perhaps just peak values and a range? --Shallot 10:56, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let's take a look for todays' gentoo. At the moment I measured the following held true, but YMMV.

The total number of ebuilds is larger than the stated number of debian packages:

$ find /usr/portage | grep .ebuild | wc -l  
   13630

But for many packages there are multiple ebuilds, usually different versions and a new testing version, to roughly find the number of unique ebuilds we can do:

$ find /usr/portage/*-* -type d | grep -v files | wc -l
    7107

but that also still counts top level dirs in /usr/portage, so:

$ ls -d /usr/portage/*-* | wc -l
     110

Okay, so 7107-110 is 6997 packages.

So it depends on how you count. A gentoo affictionado would probably just use the number of ebuilds as their number, at 13500, which is definitely more than the quoted 8000 packages for debian. On the other hand, the number of *unique packages* being tracked by gentoo is currently around 7000, so a bit less than debian in that case.

It'd be interesting to track gentoo and debian #packages through time. I wonder if there's any graphs for that? I'll keep my eyes peeled. :-) Kim Bruning 12:42, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Hmm, might as well do an

# emerge sync

Okay, now ebuilds = 13697 and # unique packages is roughly 7016. Kim Bruning 12:54, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The package count for Debian can also vary, but to compare with those current Gentoo numbers, the source package count of the "unstable" distribution matters. There's also the binary package counts, which are higher, the counts for non-current distributions, which are lower, and things like contrib and non-free section which slightly increase the former. Anyway, today Debian "unstable" has 7920 source packages. --Shallot 16:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You need to count contrib and non-free as Gentoo adds such ebuild to portage. I think personally that it's silly to say that a distribution is better because it has got slightly more packages. You cannot compare Gentoo and Debian as their aims are different. --217.229.81.7 23:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
One might also note that the percent of those Debian packages that build on all architectures is at over 95.75% today. Don't know if Gentoo keeps such statistics. --Shallot 16:32, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure if gentoo keeps the latter statistics, since "build successfully" is a function of the distro-user in the case of gentoo.

In any case the numbers are getting surprisingly close! I'll remove the statement for now since debians number is larger at the moment. But I'll bet with you that I'll be putting it back soon enough. ;-) Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 17:10, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's a simple way to alleviate this problem—don't mention the number of packages.—Kbolino 08:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linux Meta-distribution

i hate when this happens. the article "Linux Meta-distribution" redirects itself to this one, but this article DOES NOT even mention "Linux Meta-distribution" in it. the same with "Meta-distribution". Vbs 16:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So write the article at one and make the other redirect to it ;-) What is a Linux meta-distribution, anyway? (The M probably shouldn't be capitalised unless that's a proper name) - David Gerard 17:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
i don't know! i was reading the article "Portage (software)" which mentions and links to "Linux Meta-distribution", but when i went there to know what it was, it just didn't mention "Linux Meta-distribution". later i found there are actually some redirect policies, which some people don't seem to follow, cos it's not the first time this happens. Vbs 08:19, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Linux distribution

A Linux distribution is a complete Linux operating system

My built-from-scratch system was also a Linux OS. Perhaps replace "is" with "provides" or "is one way to get" or something?

The Linux kernel and much of the additional software making up a typical Linux-based system is Free Software; even more of it falls under the somewhat broader definition of Open source software.

While being correct this addition does not ring well with the sentence following it:

It is distributed by its maintainers in source form.

There is free software and there is source-available software (like Solaris). One should not imply that these are the same.

That nonwithstanding, compliments to Dmerrill for incorporating LD material from LOS! --Robbe

[edit] Slackware

I really think the Slackware bit on this page is a bit out dated (or rather completely wrong). True..... Slackware is not for the faint of heart. But it is really easy to install. And kicking down its package management... it works just fine.
Any comments.... Bilbo

The present entry for Slackware is pretty biased... nothing really unexpected, but still :) --Shallot 20:55, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Which Slackware-related part seems biased to you?
It has console-oriented package management system. It is stability- and security-oriented. It is old and actively maintained. So...
--DIG 04:18, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)~
It's biased because it only has some vague positive statements, and no negative facts. --Shallot 20:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Don't you mix apples and oranges? The "positive statements" you have mentioned are the principles in the basis of Slackware development, and they are the facts of life. What it would be if you added some negative user's experience there? You understand that we can find some kind of negative user's experience for almost everything? How and where (if at all) this can advance us?
Related questions: do you know of any negative facts showing that:
  • S. has not working console-oriented package management system,
  • S. has unstable packages,
  • S. missed to respond to some relevant security advisory,
  • S. is younger than it is claimed to be, and/or
  • S. is not actively maintained?
I assure you, that all my statements are neutral (I just use Slackware on a daily basis, and I do it long enough to do not participate in the flame wars). At least, my statements are more neutral, than biased ones like "S. is difficult to install" (unless you tell -- who install it, on what architecture, for what reason etc).
--DIG 22:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how carefree marketingspeak and/or whitewashing can advance us. Surely you must be able to see already how an entry such as Slackware's current one stands out in that list. (Some other entries are also slanted, but this example is fresh.) --Shallot 01:34, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
> I don't see how carefree marketingspeak and/or whitewashing can advance us.
I do not see either. --DIG
So don't do that then. --Shallot
I completely agree with you on this one: so don't do that then. --DIG
If you tell that Slackware is difficult to install for "naive" user -- that is fine by me. I wouldn't argue with that. (The neutrality of such a statement is a different question.) But do not tell me that Slackware is difficult to install. Period. -- I do not believe you. --DIG
Removal of pertinent, if unfavourable information is not the right way to fix the latter sentence. --Shallot
You missed the point, I am affraid. There is no wikipedia-worth information in one (or even more than one -- it just does not matter) negative user experience. I repeat, in case if there is a misunderstanding: it is a list of well (or not so well) known GNU/Linux distributions with their brief objective characterization. It is not somebody's home page to put very personalized views on the ease of the installation process. (As weak analogy, I would propose you to try to put your point of view on the ease of studying the nuclear physics or maths or biology into the corresponding wikipedia article. It is nonsense there, it is nonsense here.) --DIG
> Surely you must be able to see already how an entry such as [...].
How?
Slackware current is not an officially numbered distribution, it is testing version.
--DIG 06:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You read incorrectly: I was referring to the current entry of Slackware in this page. --Shallot
O-o-ops... My bad, sorry.
Besides, you did not answer my questioon (made from your assertion): "How an entry such as Slackware's current one stands out in that list?" And it would be nice of you if you could give me the names of "other entries [that] are also slanted". Thanks. --DIG 22:13, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Either you're trolling, or I just can't help you. In any case, this issue, though mildly amusing at start, has proven to be an utter waste of time... --Shallot
Neither. --DIG 23:57, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Polishing

I had to delete the Inter-Distro section since it is largely 'unrecommended' to use alien at all. Alien has been put simply, as 'evil'.. it is not good at all.

I inserted the Package Formats section because a Distro's emphasis for convenience has to include package management and understanding that not all distro's share packages is a misconception, so is the same that using alien on a package should mean that they are the same compiles, they are not!, it should be discouraged!

Perhaps a Misconception section should suffice? Linux Myths?

--User [[User::Jagginess|Jagginess]]

[edit] Duplicate Articles

There is a duplicate article Linux distr. On the surface, it appears that the article should be removed. However, please check to see if there is anything that can be salvaged from the other article and put into this one. Otherwise, please put that page for VFD. Thank you. --Hurricane111 16:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GNU not-necessarily part of Unix-like Linux-based systems?

The article said: "A Linux distribution is a Unix-like operating system comprising the Linux kernel plus most of the GNU operating system (almost always but not necessarily)". I've removed the part that was in parenthesis since GNU is indeed part of every Unix-like, Linux-based OS. GNU is not part of everything that is Linux-based, but it is part of every Unix-like OS that is Linux-based. This seems uncontroversial to me, but maybe this is a touchy issue for some. Comments. Gronky 13:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slackware vs. Red Hat

From the article: "Slackware's philosophy is about having only stable components, and not caring much about graphical interfaces. On the other hand Red Hat is accused to rely more on graphics and user-friendliness to beginners, therefore diminishing its quality. Other distributions also have specific viewpoints which can be found on their websites."

This should be cleaned up; "is accused to" should maybe read "tends to" or such, while "diminishing its quality" should probably be more like "decreases its stability". Mind you, I haven't used Slackware or Red Hat, so I don't actually know that this is the case, which is why I didn't change it myself and am making suggestions in the talk page ;) -- Limulus 03:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merge from List of Linux distributions

I'm surprised no discussion was opened by the proposer. I oppose on several grounds:

  • There is a tradition to keep "list of" type articles separate - they are not strictly encyclopaedic
  • This article would become too long if the information were included; there are guidelines for this based on commonly used bandwidths and some browsers having limited ability to cache.

I expect we'll keep this discussion open for further input and then remove the tag after a few days. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

Shouldn't this article be turned into one about all OS distros as opposed to just Linux-based ones (as there is not an article on that). Perhaps move to distribution (operating system) or distro or similar?

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea of distributions doesn't really exist outside the Linux world. The bsd variants all differ far too much at a very low level (they aren't even close to binary compatible (linux distros are binary compatible if static linking is used or special precautions are taken during build) to consider them mere distributions. Commercial operating systems are rarely redistributed in a significantly modified form for general use (they are modified for use in embedded systems but i'm not sure that really counts as a distro either). Plugwash 22:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I also don't think any such move is required or would be in any way useful. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boot floppies

It does indeed seem these are no longer available for the current stable:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2005/01/msg00111.html

Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] linux-supporting-gnu software

The first line currently has a strange wording about "the Linux kernel, supporting GNU system software" - which parses as: the Linux kernel plus GNU system software that supports Linux. I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean but I am sure that it is simpler to say "the GNU system plus the Linux kernel". So I'll revert, but I wanted to explain here since an anon has reverted my previous fix ("fix" being IMHO). Gronky 09:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linux on VirtualPC?

I've never heard of such a thing, so I thought I'd ask. Just doubting that an MS product would facilitate Linux... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it a "distribution" without a package manager?

I am told that in the Gentoo community, some people refuse to call something a "distribution" if it doesn't have package management. Therefore, for example, Slackware doesn't count as one by this usage. The person who told me this said this isn't official Gentoo usage, but is common in the Gentoo community. Has anyone seen anything referenceable on this? - David Gerard 20:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It's new and absurd to me. Gronky 20:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing

I do not find any mention of the licensing of Linux distributions. Are all Linux distributions under GPL? If not, why? I request anyone who is knowledgeable to include this information as Linux licensing is extremely confusing to many people. Thanks.

[edit] GNU is a part, like Linux and some other stuff

The article talks about "Unix-like" systems. Unix-like, Linux-based distros all include GNU software. Further, the vast majority of "Linux distros", including ones that are too POSIX incomplete to be called "Unix-like", contain more GNU code than Linux code. I don't see a reason to remove the name of the largest contributor to the software system in question, or to push their name down to less significant parts of the article. Gronky 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Installation: Ubuntu Free CDs?

"The most common method of installing Linux is by booting from a CD that contains the installation program and installable software. Such a CD can be burned from a downloaded ISO image, purchased alone for a low price, or can be obtained as part of a box set that may also include manuals and additional commercial software."

Can we make mention of Ubuntu's ShipIt free CD service? This seems to indicate that Linux is not really free for people who can't download the ISOs (dial-up), which is not the case. 64.230.85.230 05:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Linux page to this article

Please discuss this in Linux talk page: Talk:Linux#Merge_this_article_with_Linux_distributions -- AdrianTM 20:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DistroWatch is not authorative

DistroWatch has to be taken with a bag of salt. It doesn't monitor downloads, or "popularity" (people often say it "monitors popularity" without saying how this is measured). It just hosts a webpage for each distro and publishes which page gets the most hits. This has two problems. One is that there is no direct link between popularity and the number of hits a page on an arbitrary website gets. The second is that it's easy to game that system - just link to it or use other means to encourage users of your distro to go there. Even the owner of DistroWatch says this: "I'd like to believe that there is some truth in the figures, but in all honesty, they really don't mean all that much and should not be taken very seriously."[1] So the figures published there is, at best, an indication (and at worst false because some distro(s) are gaming the system). Gronky 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the edit, I'm going to remove the DistroWatch based info since it's incorrect to call DistroWatch's list a "summary of the top then distros", and it's incorrect to say this summary is sorted "by popularity", and the baselessness of these figures and rankings is not expressed by the description "ranked by page hits" - since the reader isn't told where these pages are, and the reader isn't told that there is no reason for a user of any distro to hit any of those pages (I never have). Sorry to undo some good-faith work, but that DistroWatch figures have value is just a common misconception. Gronky 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd argue that this is a POV with respect to the uselessness of DistroWatch and it not being a citable source of information. Certainly when I look at that list, those are by and large what I consider the "top" distributions. Yes, that's purely subjective on my part, but the point is that while the order may not be 100% accurate, it's still pretty good. I would prefer it if you put the DW info back, and added a link to the Groklaw article pointing out that the figures are to be taken with a grain (bag, whatever) of salt. Otherwise, we still need a list of the most "popular" distributions on this page, and barring the DW info I don't know how you're going to come up with that fairly. Do you see what I'm getting at? Let the reader make their own choices with respect to reliability, don't censor things for them. Chris Pickett 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In summary, if you Google "most popular linux distributions" or some variant thereof you'll invariably end up at DW. Rather than just ignore its existence, Wikipedia should present the information and also present the claims that the information is unreliable. Then WP can actually play a role beyond simply replicating the DW results, and help educate people. Otherwise, somebody curious about Linux might come along, not find anything written in WP about the subject, turn to Google, and hit DW, without fully comprehending the situation. Chris Pickett 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
So my issue is that it's misleading to present that data without full context, and your issue is that not talking about DistroWatch will leave readers uneducated. It seems that there's no fundamental conflict, so I think I see a solution: put the DW data on the DW page, and discuss DW in this article without also printing the data here. How's that? Gronky 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems pretty good, I don't think that table of raw data is very fit for this page anyway. Thanks! (Although, if you aren't presenting the DW data here, don't caution the user before they click on the wikilink; that's like, "warning, dubious information lies ahead!") There's another reference to DW further up, and some other links, maybe that whole bit should go into the Popularity section. However, that all taken care of, I still think Linux distribution needs to list the "major" distros, in alphabetical order. (So popularity should be renamed to "Major distributions".) I would like to see logos for them too. How you determine that information, I don't know, but it needs to be here. The basic question is, which distributions are notable enough for WP to list them on its Linux distribution page? There may well be some that are not "popular" that are worth listing for their unique qualities, for example Linux From Scratch. And generally, IMO, a distro that is downstream from another one probably doesn't need listing, with Ubuntu being an important notable exception. Chris Pickett 02:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed the warning about a link to a page which has a warning :-) I don't know what would be a good criteria or a good source to justify any list of distros. To me, the big four are Red Hat (including Fedora), SuSE (including OpenSuSE), Debian, and Ubuntu ...and maybe Mandriva would be a fifth. This is based on a decade of personal observation, but I've got nothing that would fit into <ref></ref> tags. Gronky 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd add Gentoo, Knoppix, MEPIS, Linux from Scratch, and Slackware to that list. I looked through the article and unless I missed something, those plus yours are the ones that are already mentioned somewhere in the body text, save Slackware. Slack is notable and important though, it's one of the oldest surviving distros. I've never really heard about MEPIS before but apparently it's popular. There, that would be 10 distros total. Oh---I just looked at Distrowatch, which gets all of those save LFS: apparently Xandros is the 10th "major" distro. Is it? I have no idea, despite being from Canada myself. I would also nominate Linspire because of all the press it has received. So 12 altogether then, a pretty varied list. I'm thinking about mentioning your 5 but without Mandriva and with Gentoo and perhaps Knoppix instead on the main Linux page when I expand the distribution section a little more. Cheers, Chris Pickett 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I guess for the sake of world-wide view neutrality, a discussion as to how distro popularity varies by region would be worthwhile. Refs are a problem as always, but for example, Mandriva's popularity in France, Conectiva in Brazil... hmmmm.... Chris Pickett 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, it turns out Mandriva is Mandrake plus Conectiva, I should really pay more attention :/ Chris Pickett 03:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I remember at one point thinking that Turbolinux was a big distro, but I can't remember why. Maybe it's big with the non-latin alphabet half of the World. Gronky 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Tiny English article, much bigger Japanese one :) I guess the only criterion I can come up with for non-notability is that if it's downstream of another distro, it doesn't really count, unless there are significant changes. So focused localization efforts that eventually make their way back upstream aren't notable, but Ubuntu is. Turbolinux appears to be in then, not a fork, and founded in 1992 and still going strong, and part of the United Linux venture with other big names already mentioned. Asianux is comparable to United Linux, and actually I think it's quite interesting that in two different cases groups of distributions banded together like that. Whether the individual distros that draw from Asianux count, I can't really say. And what about the Arabic and Hindi worlds? Gosh, there's a lot of interesting story behind all the different Linux distros that I think is appropriate to tell here. Oh, and of course Caldera OpenLinux needs description :p. Note that I'm not suggesting all these distros be rattled off in a list, other pages already do that; rather more a discussion for each as to what makes distro X significant/different from the others/famous/infamous/whatever. Chris Pickett 04:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Linuxiso.org

I am removing the (dead) link to linuxiso.org. It doesnt look like it will be returning anytime soon Dondilly 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Never heard of Aurox; spam?

We have an anonymous edit by User:194.57.239.1 that adds Aurox to the list. I'm pretty sure that isn't one of the major distros judging by all the Linux distro websites that keep statistics about this. I'm going to remove this for now until someone can prove it actually is noteworthy. -75.4.132.80 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OSVids.com

I just noticed that that site is either not up, or no longer. Thought.."I wonder why it's a link". RuMoR 01:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity statistics

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (December 2007)

This article would benefit from popularity comparisons among distributions, if anything more reliable than the apparently not-so-reliable DistroWatch list exists. -- Beland 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satux

Never heard about that distro. What is that thing doing in the popular distro listing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuineR (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 December 2007

I agree. It would appear to be a (currently) non-notable distribution, and has probably been added here to try and make it more popular. The editor has been notified of this previously it would appear. ~~ [Jam][talk] 23:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lead sentence giving unfair representation?

(Possibly related to above)

The lead sentence, as it is now, reads: "A Linux distribution, often simply distribution or distro, is a member of the Linux family of Unix-like computer operating systems. Such systems are built from the Linux kernel and assorted other packages, such as the X Window System and software from the GNU project."

I think this unnecessarily marginalizes the GNU project's contribution. I know this is something of a nit-picking, but the mention of GNU project should come *before* X Window System. Lots of distributions will let you install it without the X component (for example, if you choose to install just the base system for Debian, i.e. what's in the netinstall CD), but almost never (i.e. except for the small exceptions noted in the article) without the GNU tools. Given this important role in a distribution, marginalizing GNU project's contribution by lumping it together with "assorted other packages" seems to be more than unfair.

I propose the following sentence (+ wikilinks present at the moment) as the replacement, please comment and propose changes to it so it better adheres to the NPOV:

"A Linux distribution, often simply distribution or distro, is a member of the Linux family of Unix-like computer operating system. Such systems contain the Linux kernel, userland tools developed by the GNU project, and, frequently, the X Window System, along with other assorted software packages."

It sounds a little rough to me as it stands, but I think this (esp. the order of mention) distributes the credit more fairly than the current sentence. novakyu (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] revert warS

KDP's edit narrative "rv There is a policy here. WP:WEIGHT. 1 in 20 is close to WP:FRINGE": Not on my reading. Or, I contend, any reading. The classic example in WP:FRINGE is the flat earth theory. To call the GNU/Linux a fringe name in the same way that flat earth is a fringe theory is preposterous. The WP:WEIGHT section time and time again seems plain: Doesn't apply. I'll wait a day or two to discuss this and, failing that, revert. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Failing that, you could leave the damn thing alone until the issue on Talk:Linux is resolved. I was asked to refrain from editing to this effect while the dispute was ongoing and have done so. You have continued to edit in such a manner, including getting into revert wars over it. So I'm asking you to likewise refrain from contentious editing on this issue for the time being as an act of good faith. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Chris, my edit history shows me as doing just what you say. You cannot say I have not spent much energy in discussion things to the n-th degree on the Talk pages. I've done so without hardly touching article space. But look at the history on this page. The uneasy truce was being scrupulously maintained and then the article lead sentence was moved significantly in one direction by an anonymous edit. Perhaps my mistake was not to log out before reverting! But that's not the way I work. KDP then reverted my reversion. I then reverted, asking KDP in my edit summary to come here, to the Talk page. He has not, reverting again, and quoting policy in his edit summary that is being inappropriately (in my opinion) applied. It is at least unsympathetic of you to say I am in a revert war. I have reverted twice, once each, against (on the face of it) two editors. KDP has reverted against me twice. I have left a message on his Talk page. No response. You say I am in "revert warS". Not quite one, just yet. Hyperbole. As I said to KDP, "I'll wait a day or two to discuss this and, failing that, revert." That is not revert warring! Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Chris, pending some resolution of issues raised on Talk:Linux and elsewhere re what we're allowed to call the operating system variously referred to as one of "Linux", "Linux operating system" and "GNU/Linux", we should leave editing article space on these particular issues well alone. Therefore I intend to revert, once again, to the version which has been steady state / status quo for some time. We should "leave the damn thing alone until the issue on Talk:Linux is resolved". I ask that KDP and the anonymous editor responsible for this flare up join us in "refrain[ing] from contentious editing on this issue for the time being as an act of good faith". I will bring this sub-section to KDP's attention again. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really care whether it's at the wrong version or not. If you want to act in bad faith and revert back to your own recent edit while falsely stating that this is a consensus version then all you're doing is making it less likely that you'll get your way in the end. I've already asked KDP not to rise to the bait and to resist the temptation to give you any more attention than your position demands (i.e. not a lot). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Again and again you fail to address the argument or listen to reason and resort to other tactics. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


(1) KDP has just very recently written, contradicting his reasoning for reversion here: "Lit review shows us that GNU/Linux is used ~3% of the times that Linux is being referenced, that makes it a significant minority position (ie. not WP:FRINGE)". His reversion here therefore remains unjustified. I have invited him to comment here. He has not but has been active on WP.

(2) I do not act in bad faith and you tread close to the line (and against WP policy) by alleging that I do. You put words in my mouth: I have not said it is a consensus position. I simply said it is the status quo, agreeing with your post here, that we ought not to be editing the articles re Linux & GNU/Linux while the discussion is ongoing.

(3) I have *NOT* reverted to my own revision. You are wrong to say I did. All I did was revert to a stable [i.e. unchanged for weeks] version pending outcome of the discussion.

(4) Having waited long enough for KDP, I revert the 1st sentence back to that position, before the anon edit, and ignoring KDP's incorrect (by his own recent contradictory statement) quoting of inapplicable policy.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Less than ~3% makes it notable as a minority view. But it doesn't make it (according to WP:WEIGHT a significant minority position. And it certainly isn't a large enough minority that you can give it equal position in the lead. That is undue weight. And you know exactly why i haven't answered you. Because you are misrepresenting views, just as you did in the above. But ignore weight as much as you want - i'm going to uphold the truce, even though you didn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
What we on *our* side of this debate all agree on (I hesitate to say we but I am sure I am correct) as a *minimum* is that we are against the *elimination* of the term GNU/Linux from the encyclopedia and from all mention in articles re FOSS and free Unix-like operating systems. What was occurring was the systematic and undue near-elimination of the term from WP. The (temporary?) stopping of that is precisely the truce of which you speak. My edit was to prevent the removal of a mention of GNU/Linux from an article. That is the truce you have just said you wish to uphold, isn't it? Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, no. There's no "truce": there was an agreement by me that I would put the project on hold while there was ongoing discussion. I have not reverted to my version of articles because some anonymous user has "broken the truce" and reinserted the term in 20 or so articles. It didn't affect user:68.19.62.25, who was the person who edited this article in a way which provoked a revert from you. Furthermore, given your double-revert over where GNU/Linux should point to the other week, you're in no position to say that you've been holding off on contentious editing over the term. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
As regards the GNU/Linux -> Linux edits I don't give a flying **** who is doing the edits. To me it matters not if it is you or some anonymous editor. The matter is being discussed. Pending some resolution of the issue(s) you've put your "project" on hold, so you tell us. You have suggested I do as you. I agree, but that doesn't mean that I should be happy if others carry it forward for you in some kind of unbidden sockpuppetry. As for your objection to the use of the word "truce" I tell you what: You suggest a term and I'll see if I like it. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
We're evens then, it seems: I did a double revert over there and then I backed off (although without arguing over anyone's use of language or any grandstanding). KDP reverted here and you and he have backed off. Be happy. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Any restatement of your views I have made which you don't like I apologise for. Perhaps I would be better off saying. "Am I correct in understanding you to say" rather than "you must therefore be saying". Or if I am drawing a conclusing from two separate but related things you say, I should note so, similarly. However I have *not* set out deliberately to misrepresent your views or to draw undue conclusions from what you have said, and, I must add, I don't think I have. I would find it helpful were you to try and understand why it is I may have got it wrong - that I have misunderstood is not necessarily because I am bending the argument or that I am an idiot but just possibly because you have not been clear - and to aid understanding. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If you think undue offence is being generated one way only you are far from right. All I did here was revert an anonymous edit which violated the uneasy truce we had all seemed to settle for and which is in complete accord with the request Chris is complying with - to leave well alone pending some resolution: We are not making Linux vs GNU/Linux edits at the moment. I reverted an anonymous user who did just that. For you and Chris to represent this reversion as violating the truce is incorrect and I can't help but feel this is deliberate and I ask any other reader just to examine the edit history. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
For the public record. It is Thumperward who goes around making false accusations and statements. Thumpeward acts in bad faith to editors who do not agree with his point of view (POV). He and a few other editors try to remove the terms GNU and GNU/linux from wikipedia. As long as an editor supports his cause he never criticizes him no matter if he breaks wikipedia civility rules WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE. But when an editor opposes his unjustified actions he or another editor encouraged by him start to make false accusations.--Grandscribe (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ubuntu screenshot not representative of linux distributions

The Ubuntu screenshot in the Linux disibution articles should nto be there on my opinion.

The fact is that Ubuntu is a Linux distribution, but a Linux distribution isn't necessarily Ubuntu.

Somehow this screenshot could be considered as some kind of easy advertising for Ubuntu that isn't that necessary and places other distributions at the state of secondary distros.

Ubuntu isn't the only popular distribution and doesn't have true reason of being represented as first screen to watch in an article. This would have been the same for other distros such as Fedora or Mandriva.

It would be better if the Ubuntu screenshot was not added to the Linux distribution page. This screenshot isn't useful and there are more than one popular distribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.53.12 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, under this theory, there would be no distribution that would be representative. I'm not advocating for an Ubuntu screenshot, but I am trying to help decide what sort of screenshot should be used. — Val42 (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Is a screenshot really necessary for this page? At least not of a linux distribution : this would privilege one distribution and leave others behind. I'm not in anything against Ubuntu, but I believe no linux distro should have its screenshot on top and alone. However, a solution could be what has been done on the french version of this article. See http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_Linux#Quelques_captures_d.27.C3.A9cran for exact reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.53.12 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I just checked out the link that you provided. This does show screenshots of several of the prominent Linux distributions. This would be a good way to do it, but it wouldn't work in the introductory paragraph. — Val42 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
At the top of the page, if a screenshot must be added, then perhaps we could put a picture of Tux. But considering other languaes do not have any screenshot on the top of the page, I think adding several distribution's screenshot down the page of the article. I think that to understand what is a Linux distro, a good explanation worths more than a simple image. Is it all right for me to take off the Ubuntu screenshot?
I have added different distribution screenshots at the bottom of the page. In this way, it is absolutely impartial (at least it should). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.5.210 (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)