Category talk:Linux software

Category Name
Ugh, most of this stuff shouldn't be here because it's cross-platform and has nothing to do with Linux (the kernel) in particular. In fact, this category probably shouldn't even exist (or at least should be renamed). —Keenan Pepper 14:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Or is this just any software that runs on Linux? That seems kinda silly and in that case there should be a lot more stuff here. —Keenan Pepper 14:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Horribly misnamed categories
I propose this all items in this category, and subcategories be moved to an equivalent Unix version. For instance, all items in "Linux text editors" be moved to "Unix text editors." It is my belief that no software under this category is Linux specific and is available for most common Unix systems. Therefore, this category should not exist. -Howardjp 16:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, Linux web browsers was moved to POSIX web browsers, maybe renaming this category and it's included ones to :s/Linux/POSIX/g. 65.94.50.171 23:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing this category is absurd
Today this category was deleted from the article ScummVM. It is just so STUPID when the article is, however, in the Mac OSX, Windows, etc. categories! Why can't there be a Linux category? Because the category is misused?! In that case let's just stop misusing the category!--Wormsie 20:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me understand the CFD...
Is the decision to delete all entries from this cat, and then restore only those are are truly Linux-only? That makes sense, and seems to be implied by the discussion, but I want to be sure. Meanwhile, I've restored ShowEQ, which was in fact Linux-only (though there was a seperate project that ported the ShowEQ codebase to Windows, the ShowEQ project remained Linux-only and was never ported to other POSIX platforms). -Harmil 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a note on this, BTW: there were only 4 people that commented on the CFD... that seems a bit light for any kind of consensus, and while I agree that most of the entries here were probably not Linux specific enough for this categorization to be meaningful, it seems odd to have removed all of them. -Harmil 21:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Four people commented on the CfD but only one voted for Delete. I did some searching and here is the discussion for reference: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_20. I had no idea this CfD was even occurring until after it was over. Silly me, now I watch categories too. (Requestion 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC))


 * Writing software which _ONLY_ runs on GNU/Linux and not on any other POSIX platform is nearly impossible, if this list should only contain "truly Linux-only" applications then it will be a very short (and obselete?) list... Carpetsmoker 03:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What category name do you suggest? "Unix software", "POSIX software", or something else? The Microsoft and Macintosh categories don't seem to suffer from this sort of GNU/infighting. Also being included in this category didn't mean _ONLY_. Why can't a program be in multiple categories? (Requestion 03:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC))

Do Not Delete this category
This category was hastily deleted after a brief discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_20 without anything on the talk page. I know there is some debate over the naming of this category but that should not be a reason for deleting it. You can view my talk page (User_talk:Benjaminevans82) and the talk page of  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  (who is the guy who authorized the deletion of the category) for a discussion regarding the Linux software category. The category was deleted then reinstated after discussion. Please do not delete this category as it is regularly used by linux enthusiasts. --Benjaminevans82 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't blame Radiant for the deletion. I don't like the fact that this category was deleted but it looks like Radiant chose the correct consensus. If you want to blame somebody then blame the individual that cast the Delete opinion because that opinion was the deciding factor and it was cast in bad faith. At first I WP:AGF in respect to Gronky's actions but then I had more encounters with Gronky and it became obvious that this user had a hidden agenda that revolved around a Free Software universe with the goal to transform this place into the GNU/Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, I use Linux, I love Free Software, and I love the GFDL but I will not let my Wikipedia become GNUified. For starters, such a mindset violates WP:NPOV. (Requestion 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Renaming of Category
In regards to the name of this category we have four options.
 * 1) We create a category: POSIX software.
 * 2) We create a category: unix-like software (Please note that there is currently a Category:Unix software which is for software which will run on two or more unix-like operating systems)
 * 3) We create a category: linux software - just for software written for the linux operating system.
 * 4) We have a category: linux software - for any software which will run natively on linux.

The problem with option 1 in having a POSIX software category is that it is a "grey" term in the fact that some operating systems are fully compliant and some are mostly compliant. Plus you will get software which will run on some POSIX operating systems and not on others.

The problem with option 2 using a unix-like software category is again that it is a "grey" term also you will get software which will run on some unix-like operating systems and not on others. What we could possibly do is combine the Category:Unix software and Category:Linux software to create a category called "Unix-like software". The problem with this is that people will come along in future and create a linux software category simply because that there are categorys for windows software, Mac OS X software, BSD software, Solaris software etc. plus i do not think the Mac users would like it if we got rid of their Mac OS X category and combined it into a Unix-like category.

The problem with option 3 is that some software will have a debate on whether or not it was specifically written for linux or not. Take for example Firefox, GIMP and Open Office it is debateable want operating system they were specifically written for as they will all run on Windows, Mac and Linux.

I am personally in favour of having option four (Which is what we already have). It is very simple to add an article to this category or not. It either runs natively on Linux or it does not. Choosing this option means that we can leave the categorys: BSD software, Solaris software, Mac OS X etc alone. Plus the fact that people running Solaris, Mac OS X or Linux can easily find software which will run on their operating system. --Benjaminevans82 17:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think option 4 might be the ideal solution. There is nothing wrong with a bit of overlap between categories. A couple concerns I have are about: POSIX, Mac OS X, and the proliferation of too many Unix-like categories. We both know what POSIX is but I feel that the average Wikipedian doesn't know and doesn't want to know about this distinction, "POSIX" just confuses most people. I echo your sentiments that while Mac OS X is technically Unix, for most practical purposes it is it's own unique entity. I am a little concerned about having too many Unix-like categories simply because of overload and the difficulty of independent editors applying them correctly.


 * For example; Let us say that we have a program that runs natively on Linux and Mac OS X. It would get the following software categories { Linux, Mac OS X, Unix }. What if it also ran on Solaris and/or Microsoft windows? Maybe this isn't a problem at all? (Requestion 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

This is under free software
I have a problem with this category being under the Linux cat. The linux is under free software and that puts all this non free software under free software indirectly. We should remove the linux cat from this cat so that it is not indirectly under free software.

thanks, James Michael DuPont (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)