Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy/Archive 13

unjustified reverts of the edits concerning "Jimmy Wales" opinion
the two users User:Ahunt and User:Aoidh, have reverted the edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU/Linux_naming_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=664234743 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU/Linux_naming_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=664268962) done for adding the information concerning the opinion of Jimmy Wales inside the section "Opinions supporting "GNU/Linux"": such deletion of reliable content violates the WP:NPOV and WP:DISRUPT policies: and thus is lack of constructive edits which can be seen as a POV pushing. 197.27.115.225 (talk) 13:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Jimmy Wales' personal opinion on the issue, dating from 2008 is not relevant to this article. Lots of people have opinions on it but they are not experts in the field nor have they been quoted in reliable third party sources. In this case, the ref you added was a Wikipedia user talk page page, which is WP:SPS and not a reliable source. - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Jimmy Wales' cited reference is a diff(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thumperward&diff=prev&oldid=189637292): so it's clear enough that's reliable. The edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU/Linux_naming_controversy&diff=664260324&oldid=664259885) was reverted because as I said the reference doesn't say that RMS started in 2015 using the term "GNU/Linux": and it's clear that you are trying to push non-reliable informations for justifying some POV. So, when reverting other edits per WP:VAND, you mustn't consider yourself having more weight than others, as you also have vandalized reliable reference behind a personal POV. 197.27.115.225 (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear here, you cannot add quotes to an article without citing a reliable source and a Wikipedia talk page is not a reliable source. Two editors have now removed this as per policy, including WP:SPS, WP:BLP and WP:QUOTE. Your recent edits have also removed text cited to a reliable source which is WP:VANDALISM, for which you have been repeatedly warned. - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There are several issues with the edit, namely the source used. Jimmy Wales, like most people, has said many things about many topics. If this particular thing is significant, then surely a third-party source can be found that can give weight to the quote? If not, then it isn't as important enough to the article's subject to warrant using that quote. Ignoring the WP:DISRUPT claim, which has no justification whatsoever, reverting the edit is not a violation of WP:NPOV specifically per WP:DUE; just because something can be verified doesn't mean it's relevant enough to mention. Provide a third-party source showing that the quote is significant in any way; that is the bare minimum to even consider including it in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * All what you have said is still unable to justify your reverts, and it's clear that you are trying to justify some POV instead. 41.224.101.46 (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The reasoning for reverting the edit is valid, you accepting the reasoning is not required. If you are unable to collaborate with other editors and meet them half way, the content your trying to put in the article will not be in the article. I am trying to compromise; if the content has third-party sources showing that it's relevant, I'd be more willing to see it as valid content. Wikipedia is about collaborating and compromising to improve articles; if you don't meet me half way, the quote is not going to be in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 3rd parties are optional and not required, as it can't be more reliable than the original source itself which is the diff : Your requested page protection for this article doesn't let you hide your lack of collaborative spirit you have used for protecting your unjustified reverts: you are also involved in a violation of WP:NPOV, and WP:VAND policies, don't forget that.

All is clear now: you and ahunt are involved in a non-honnest conspiracy, with the help of the administrator (and maybe others), against free content related to the "opinions supporting GNU/Linux" section for censoring it (for personal reasons of course), instead of protecting it from vandaism: such pure POV-pushing can be seen also in your and ahunt's software-related contributions history, where you both have been involved in a disruption of such GNU related terms without trying to meet other people half-way: and thus reflects your non-compromising behaviour which is unacceptable: you can see my comment related to this issue on ANI. 41.224.105.105 (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC).
 * You're confusing verifiability with relevance. I'm not asking you to show that the quoted words were given, I'm asking to show that it's relevant; that's what WP:NPOV requires. As for your conspiracy theory, I'll let the WP:ANI discussion you started address that. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you tried to repeat other words from here (from "ability of collaborating correctly with other editors" to "unable to collaborate with other editors") instead of using your own: and that reflects your lack of well-discussing with others.

Don't try also to deem stupid other people by telling them to believe that the editor wrote "edit warring with User:Ahunt" because he is "very aware that he is edit warring" as what you said in your your page protection request: such edit summary syntax is used by many editors to describe that the edit they reverted is for a different user who is edit-warring against them, if you still don't know that ... 41.224.105.105 (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that fact that you interpret your inability to convince other editors that you should be able to add quotes from a Wikipedia talk page to this article is some sort of big conspiracy really means that this conversation has run its course. As noted above if you can find a third party independent source that provides this quote then it can be added, otherwise, by Wikipedia policy it cannot. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that you got wrong here, adding an opinion of well-known person from a reliable source as an example for some content doesn't violate neutrality, and it's a beneficial contribution. The real big conspirancy is to write false info like what you did: "In May 2015 Stallman began calling Linux-based operating systems "the GNU operating system"" which the reference you cited didn't say, and trying to force such done edit like a lie, with deleting other reliable content. I think that's clear enough, and that you should read your words carefully next-time instead of saying false positives. 41.224.224.129 (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It can be noted that the various IPs took this issue to ANI where an admin termed the IP behavior "not acceptable" and semi-protected the article for a month. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edit warring as explained in the noticeboard is also unacceptable, and the administrators needs to take serious action for it rather than semi-protecting it for a month. 41.224.101.46 (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that is your opinion, but the admin acting on it to your ANI post, labelled your behaviour "not acceptable" and locked the article so you cannot edit it. You can note, as I explained previously, that reverting vandalism is not considered edit warring. I think we are done here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, it's well justified that the edits you reverted are not vandal. I know that it was a disappointment from the part of the admin: but that doesn't prevent that you should be blocked. 41.224.101.46 (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2015
"GNU/Linux was a term that was promoted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its founder Richard Stallman up until 2015 when the term was abandoned."

Firstly, the source is not a reliable one. It doesn't even present itself as a reliable source; it's clearly presented as the supposition of one person based on the way a single article by RMS was worded.

Secondly, this claim is directly contradicted by one of the sources given (the one from the GNU Project website), which continues to use the term "GNU/Linux" and does not state anywhere that "GNU/Linux" is "abandoned".

It seems the entire introduction has been edited to reflect this assumed change which doesn't even have a good source behind it. It needs to be reverted to its previous state which didn't assume that the controversy is over, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

23.28.14.219 (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * After I requested this, I realized I could do the edit myself using this account (which I haven't used in years). So I've done it. onpon4 (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement about the ridiculous paragraph giving undue weight to Softpedia's article
I've added several FSF articles, all written since Softpedia's, as sources to show quite clearly that Softpedia's article is patently absurd and not deserving of any mention. This paragraph should be removed. It does not belong here. There was never any evidence to back up the Softpedia writer's claim to begin with, and the FSF and RMS are still very clearly using the term. Mentioning this article is WP:UNDUE. However, when I tried to remove this paragraph, a certain someone reverted my change because "[t]hat doesn't change the press report here". So rather than getting into an edit war with this certain someone, I'm leaving that to someone else. 108.70.63.66 (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

He argues/they argue
It's stated that a version of the lead, which has two vaguely defined sides eternally "arguing," is better. In what way? "Linux" is the editorial preference of most press whether someone wants to argue it or not, so there is no particular need to put "some people argue" before it. Furthermore, WP's own editorial guidelines warn against the use of suggestive words when attributing statements to people. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is about a controversy with two opposing arguments. The lead section needs to distinctly and clearly outline those two arguments for the readers. - Ahunt (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Who provides POSIX compatiblity?
By definition, there is no controversy. As POSIX states: POSIX defines the application programming interface (API), along with command line shells and utility interfaces, for software compatibility with variants of Unix and other operating systems.

GNU is Not Unix, but it is Unix-compatible and provides the GNU extensions. GNU provides the user space API to access que system call interface of Linux. There is no controversy, just misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filiprino (talk • contribs) 13:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GNU/Linux naming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120072858/http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484 to http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on GNU/Linux naming controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zcommunications.org/free-software-as-a-social-movement-by-richard-stallman
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120805174833/http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9904.0/0299.html to http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9904.0/0299.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120629031248/http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9904.0/0301.html to http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9904.0/0301.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120806004757/http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9904.0/0497.html to http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9904.0/0497.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Where should I put this? (Debian's position)
From The Debian Administrator's Handbook:

BACK TO BASICS Linux or GNU/Linux? -- ''Linux, as you already know, is only a kernel. The expressions, “Linux distribution” and “Linux system” are, thus, incorrect: they are, in reality, distributions or systems based on Linux. These expressions fail to mention the software that always completes this kernel, among which are the programs developed by the GNU Project. Dr. Richard Stallman, founder of this project, insists that the expression “GNU/Linux” be systematically used, in order to better recognize the important contributions made by the GNU Project and the principles of freedom upon which they are founded. Debian has chosen to follow this recommendation, and, thus, name its distributions accordingly (thus, the latest stable release is Debian GNU/Linux 8).

Source: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-handbook/sect.why-gnu-linux.en.html

riveravaldez (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Nowhere. It is directly from Stallman and his position is already documented in the article, plus this is already mentioned in the lead section. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"GNU/Linux" naming controversy?
With the official Wikipedia stance being that the OS should be known as Linux, doesn't the naming of this article provide an obvious bias? If you're trying to indicate the two naming options without bias, the page should be "'GNU/Linux'/'Linux' naming controversy". If you're trying to simply state the name of the OS, it should be named "Linux naming controversy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.121.138 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "Controversy" is already a very generous term to describe the fact that a tiny, vocal and self-righteous minority wants to change the way everyone else refers to what has always been and will always be the Linux operating system.  Period.185.23.220.233 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that Linux began as an operating system kernel, and a lot of GNU software was, and still is used to make a bootable system. Of course, over time, other components were added by other people, but there really is no "Linux Operating System". There are various distributions, all which provide a customized kernel, GNU components, and a bunch of other stuff. A given distribution (e.g. Ubuntu, Arch) forms an operating system. - Tystnaden (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're contributing to the discussion. Read the article. The OS widely called Linux started years before Linux kernel and was called GNU. Some people believe that we should keep calling it that way, but also take into consideration, that you can put different kernels into GNU, and that kernel is a big part of whole OS. That's why GNU/Linux exists as a name. — K4rolB (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Linux vs. GNU/Linux naming controversy"? Otherwise it becomes really littered with quote marks and slashes. Although I feel the current name gives a feel of the article just right and I don't consider any name change too necessary. — K4rolB (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All the more reason for the title of the article to be simply "Linux naming controversy". No clutter and no undue weight for fringe POVs, like the one you yourself blatantly espouse above.185.23.220.233 (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Except for the fact that the term "Linux" used in this context is not controversial, the name "GNU/Linux" is. The article is named for the controversy not for "not the controversy". - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

GNU/Linux, Linux, or GNU?
I added that it's 'GNU/Linux,' 'Linux' or 'GNU,' but someone removed 'GNU.' Some Free/Libre/Opensource Software (FLOSS) people in their discussion areas call it GNU. Most the original software was GNU, and even the Linux kernel is under the GNU General Public License. Much the other software does also. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) that started the GNU project also calls it the GNU operating system in some cases. Is there a way I could cite a conversation with someone to prove people also argue for calling it GNU, or cite the FSF site or their founder? Richard Stallman says for the Church of Emacs 'there is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels'... so I tend to this alternative idea, that all of them are simply GNU operating systems.--206.63.237.146 (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your question. I think this is already covered in the third paragraph. - Ahunt (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that "GNU" alone should be listed as an alternative; but that Linux is released under a license formulated by the GNU Project in no way gives the GNU Project any claim to Linux. ~reubsnoobs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.211.81 (talk)

NPOV
I have concerns over the language used to present the arguments in the controversy, which may compromise Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. There are instances where the content appears to be original research, such as the unsourced "Determining exactly what constitutes the 'operating system' per se is a matter of continuing debate," almost as if it were using weasel words to deliberately make it vague for some subconscious effect, but that is beside the point.

The article presents the rationales that proponents and opponents use to support their reasons for or against either of the two names. However, the article sometimes appears to support one name or the other by stating rationales as facts, as opposed to citing proponents or opponents giving the rationales, regardless of the accuracy of those statements. For example, while the statement "'Linux' is by far the more widespread name." may very well be a fact, presenting the arguments like that makes the article appear to endorse that name, as the sentence alone does not directly cite or even hint anyone. That is just one example, but the article thus states fact-based arguments as simply facts. I cannot cite a particular Wikipedia policy or Manual of Style guideline that discourages such language, but I do know based on my experience that the tone is not encyclopedic. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 04:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * the statement was problematic and vacuously vague. at the time of my removing it, one reference said factually misleading things about the history of gnu and linux in the supporting paragraph, and the other link was broken. ~reubsnoobs
 * as mentioned above, the style of the point is very inconsistent w/ rest of article. ~reubsnoobs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.211.81 (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Lignux?
is attempting to cast this controversy as one between the term "GNU/Linux" and "Lignux" which is totally new to me, and not at all what has been at issue for decades now. If Richard M. Stallman wants to re-ignite controversy by proposing a ridiculous pronunciation, we're gonna need significant coverage in independent secondary sources before we can document it here. Until that time comes, the lede stays as it is. Elizium23 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a secondary source? The sentence could easily, although not necessary, be twisted: << … and the Linux kernel as "GNU/Linux" or, in Stallman's so-called "favorable alternative nomenclature", "LiGNUx" (pronounced Lig-nukes) >> Tobias Epos (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously asking why we need a secondary source for something that you want to insert in an article? Elizium23 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Without independent sources it isn't notable. Even with proper sources it would just merit a small note somewhere, just another variation on the same old theme. - Ahunt (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Stallman is prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks him to give the reason for his proposal:There is nothing "ridiculous" about it. Tobias Epos (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what new twist Stallman has on this or how he is trying to keep this thing going forever, he could make up a new word he wants everyone else to use each day, but if third party sources haven't noted then it isn't notable enough to be included here. Wikipedia is not a platform for his PR campaigns. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.debian.org/intro/about there's a third-party link for you... i'm a BSD user, so not really hip w/ the "lInUx"er crowd, but I think debian is in pretty wide usage? ~reubsnoobs
 * ahh, i see you are referring to "lignux" ~reubsnoobs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.211.81 (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The gnu/linux faq at www.gnu.org seems to suggest that Lignux is older than GNU/Linux. ~reubsnoobs
 * https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#long  seems I misread it.  ~reubsnoobs  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.211.81 (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)