Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy/Archive 9

Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
Does this mean the Linux name is actually not free? Or he can sue someone for naming a system Linux? Ufopedia (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, yes, he could theoretically sue somebody for infringing on the trademark. However, going around suing Linux companies is not something he intends to do. Read this article for his statement on his use of his trademark: http://slashdot.org/linux/00/01/19/0828245.shtml     I hope that clears things up. michaelb Talk to this user 17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Stallman's pronunciation is the same as the normal pronunciation
From the last section of the article:
 * Given that Stallman pronounces GNU as

The normal pronunciation of the word GNU is found earlier
 * Although "GNU/Linux" is often, "GNU Linux"..

The pronunciation of GNU is the same in both, but it's being presented as though Stallman pronounces GNU differently. This is confusing. Am I missing something? michaelb Talk to this user 17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-published sources
Many of the citations in the article violate WP:SPS. 69.196.135.142 (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Under Wikipedia policy self-published sources are allowed, with a number of limitations:


 * "Self-published and questionable sources about themselves


 * Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:


 * 1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
 * 2. it is not contentious;
 * 3. it is not unduly self-serving;
 * 4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
 * 7. the article is not based primarily on such sources."


 * The question is then does the use of these sources meet the policy? - Ahunt (talk) 11:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the wording of that exception is unclear. I read "about themselves" as meaning it is okay to use a source from person X on the topic of person X, yet here we are not discussing a person but a name.  If this is not the case then I think 2,3,4,7 do not apply.  69.196.135.142 (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the whole controversy seems to be mostly originate with the GNU organization and its members, I would consider that GNU was really presenting their own arguments, in other words that it was "about themselves" and so these criteria would be applicable. But I do admit is is quite debatable! It would seem unnecessary to find a third party reference to report what they had stated as their position. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So assume you are correct, then 2,3,4,7 do not apply. 69.196.135.142 (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I would say if they are putting forward their own view that all would apply, as the policy states. By "contentious" I would assume that there is no debate or confusion as to the fact that this is their view. The rest seem to be fine and would apply I would think and would allow these sources to be used as long as the article does not rest entirely upon those references, in other words that this article about a conflict of ideas is balanced between the sides. - Ahunt (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you show me some other sizeable Wikipedia articles where mailing list postings are acceptable sources? 69.196.135.142 (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * edit: I think it's never "contentious" that an SPS represents the views of the self-publisher. However, the topic definitely IS contentious; if the title of the article is not enough, see this page: Talk:Linux/Name  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.135.142 (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation section is over the top
As michaelb noted recently on this talk page, Stallman uses normal pronunciation. And while it is worth noting how pronouncing the slash avoids ambiguity, it rises to the level of parody to pollute the paragraph with so much IPA. It only worsens an article already rife with problems.

There are lots of ways to just rewrite the section to make it more concise, more helpful, and less distracting. Would you care to do this work, or do you prefer that I do it? If you prefer that I fix it, please state any concerns that you have about whether I am missing something or might leave something out. Freed42 (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Promoted" versus "used" in the intro
Given that this is an explicitly advocative term, the lead should make it clear that the term is promoted by the FSF and not merely "used". I suppose "used and promoted" might be an acceptable compromise? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Having carefully read the cited reference I have to agree. It says:


 * "'Whether you use GNU/Linux or not, please don't confuse the public by using the name “Linux” ambiguously. Linux is the kernel, one of the essential major components of the system. The system as a whole is basically the GNU system, with Linux added. When you're talking about this combination, please call it “GNU/Linux”.'"


 * The ref makes it very clear — they are directly promoting and asking people to use "GNU/Linux". The current article text which says that the term is "used" by FSF is inaccurate and inconsistent with the reference. This is not a matter for points of view or opinions, the article must conform to the references as required by Wikipedia policy.- Ahunt (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The article text refers to "some people in the free software movement". Such members greatly outnumber those belonging to the FSF.  Some people may promote "GNU/Linux", such as the FSF.  But how do we know that most users of "GNU/Linux" promote it — or even more — that most uses are for purposes of some kind advocacy?  Consideration of common usage, after all, is the very (tenuous) basis for the attempted mass censorship of "GNU/Linux" from Wikipedia in the first place.  There are many possible reasons for the use of "GNU/Limux" having nothing to do with advocating something: a simple wish to use more accurate language; using a product name, such as "Debian GNU/Linux"; trying to clarify to a customer the origins of the product that they are buying support for, etc.   Of course, as you realize, "use" subsumes "promote".


 * Put another way, there are many things that are promoted and simply described as used on Wikipedia. Why not change all of those, and why begin here? Should important terms such as "African American" be treated likewise?  After all, its Wikipedia entry duly notes that "In the 1980s the term African American was advanced on the model", which, of course, implies "was promoted".  Moreover, using the (unsubstantiated) criterion that common usage trumps everything in the case of "Linux" versus "GNU/Linux", should instances of "African American" be censored in favor of the far more ubiquitious "black". Freed42 (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to argue about the "purge" or "accuracy" or whatever then feel free to join the debate in the appropriate place. This isn't it. For now, the point is that given that the inventor of the term (the source used for the comment Ahunt linked) does explicitly promote the term, it seems inappropriate to hide this from the reader. Further, "some in the free software movement" is weaselly. We should be precise where possible. It can quickly be established that those most apt to use the term are advocates for it, and thus should be referred to as such, by name if possible.
 * The comment about "African American" is just WAX to me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would urge editors in this discussion to not lose sight of the Wikipedia standard for inclusion, which is not "truth" or even who has the most persuasive argument, but Verifiability:


 * "'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.'"


 * In this respect, Chris is right, my inclusion of the word "some" is imprecise at best and more likely truly weaselly. Although I think it is better than "most" which the cited ref specifically says is not the case. The statement should say exactly who uses the term "GNU/Linux" and cite a ref to show who uses it. Anything else will be challenged and lead to removal, as it should under policy.


 * So let me propose this: Let us amend the para to indicate precisely who uses the term and avoid weaselly terms like "most" or "some" unless a ref can be found that shows that this is verifiable. - Ahunt (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC) (PS total disclosure on this issue: I am a verifiability crusader, rather than a supporter of either side in the article subject.)


 * "Weasel" is just being slapped on here without any thought, if I make the big assumption of good faith. "Some people say X" (therefore X).  That's weaselly.  "Some people say X" (therefore some people say X).  That's not weaselly.  If anything, it's a bit redundant, since that fact is what brought about the whole matter in the first place several years ago.Freed42 (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also add that "WAX" is also being used without thought. I actually bothered to see to which page that belonged--it specifically applies to deletion discussions, whether or not to keep an article, i.e., totally impertinent to this discussion.  The pattern of argument that I see (not from you) is to just throw stuff out like WAX and weasel and hope that something sticks.  It probably will.Freed42 (talk) 01:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is frequently used by the community to refer to the use of any of the included arguments within a broader discussion on WP. The rationale provided there (that precedent on unrelated articles does not automatically apply to future discussions) is still a firmly-established rule of the community, and is equally applicable outwith AfDs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion is losing focus here. The only issue, as I see it is: "what references do we have that confirms who uses the term "GNU/Linux"."


 * If we have a reference that says that it is "most users" then let's put that in.
 * If we have a reference that says that it is "some users" then let's put that in.
 * If we have a reference that says that it is "58% of users" then let's put that in.
 * If we have a reference that says that it is "The Free Software Foundation" then let's put that in.

We must have reliable references, as policy requires those. Right now the cited ref indicates that the FSF uses the term "GNU/Linux" and that they ask "please call it “GNU/Linux”." That sounds like they are "promoting" or "advocating" for the term and not just using it. They also say many users of the system are not aware that it is a GNU/Linux system. That says to me that "many" users do not call it "GNU/Linux". So far that is all we have for reliable refs. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We need look no further than Wikipedia GNU/Linux distribution to see just some of the distributions that use "GNU/Linux" (others are BLAG, Ututo, Parsix, I could rattle off a bunch more if you insist). Some Fortune 500 companies such as Sun, use "GNU/Linux".  The "Free software movement"--which does not include prominent "Linux"  promoters such as Torvalds--is already a relatively specific reference population which is associated with the entities that I have just mentioned, hence my usage of it in the article.  In place of "free software movement", one might say "some associated with the free software movement", but that does not particularly address your concerns and IMHO is not particularly informative.  GNU/Linux distribution puts it in this form "is used by distributions such as foo, bar, baz, etc."


 * A different tack is to begin with a reminder of what a free software distribution is, which is, after all, the object that these labels are meant to describe. Then we could note that uses of "GNU/Linux" are, indeed, more commonly associated with uses of "distribution" than is the case for "Linux" and "distribution" according to the dominant search engine, Google (61.5% US market share as of Jun08, 79.2% in Europe as of March08): 4,220,000 versus 3,750,000, respectively, according to a search I did today (see and, respectively).  Thus, I am tempted, for a start, to add this data to the article to complement the data from Distrowatch (an insignificant site compared to Google), to add a qualification to the introduction of Linux distribution, and to ask for verification of who exactly uses "Linux" (other than its proper reference, i.e., the kernel named "Linux").Freed42 (talk) 04:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Take it to Talk:Linux/Referring to this article. There is a centralised discussion for this issue, and it's tiring having to continually address points you'rve made which were adequately refuted several months ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the original version of the para — in reading the ref cited this is really the only way of stating who supports "GNU/Linix" that is supported by the ref cited at the present. As indicated above I believe that to say otherwise first requires new refs to be cited. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That last revert was excessive. After all, I compromised by keeping the promote idea but just using the more neutral "advocate" term.  Every phrase attached to who uses it is true, e.g., there is no basis for removing "distributions such as Debian GNU/Linux".  I do see that I could make the language more precise, something along the lines of "...used by some in the free software movement including the FSF (who also advocates it) and free software distributions such as Debian GNU/Linux".  This makes it very clear that the FSF advocates the term which, after all, is the demand being made here.  If you need a citation to support Debian, then we have have bigger problems, think about it.  Oh, and if you think that "some" is still weaselly then you still do not understand what weaselly means.  It is weaselly to say "Some call this OS the XYZ..." without any other context because you are trying to weasel in the implication "This OS is called the XYZ.  Period.".  It is not weaselly to indicate, especially in a article that constantly reminds us (with a title that is hopefully explicit enough for you) that there is a controversy where some people say this and some (OK, by far most in the mainstream press or whatever) say that.  Indulge me, what is weaselly about it?  Now, if I restore the text with something like the new phrase, "...by some in the free software movement including the FSF (who also advocates it) and distributions such as Debian GNU/Linux", could you explain to me what exactly needs citing here?  What would be the problem?  The most obvious variation on the phrase is to mention some more distributions such as gNewSense.  All of this clearly gives the reader a more accurate idea of who uses the term. Freed42 (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about AHunt's, I don't agree. You made a not-inconsiderable expansion of the FSF position in the lede which served the purpose of lending it undue weight. The GNU/Linux argument need not be fully explored in the lede just like the Linux one isn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take out that FSF arg then (last sentence). I still stand behind my claim against the current wording in the first sentence. Freed42 (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your feelings are on the GNU/Linux vs. Linux naming issue, there is overwhelming evidence that the "Linux" term is by far the most widespread. For example, a search on the Factiva news database over the last 10 years finds more than 100 times as many mentions of "Linux" as "GNU/Linux" in press sources. (Yes, some of these mentions are probably for the kernel proper, but it is not credible to suggest that 99% of the "Linux" mentions in the mainstream press are talking exclusively about the kernel.) "Linux" is overhwhelmingly used in mainstream press sources —  Eweek has a "Linux Watch" section covering the OS. ; Linux Journal ... um, enough said; Byte magazine has "Linux line" and "Serving with Linux" columns on the OS;  Dr. Dobb's Journal has a Linux/Open-Source section ;  The New York Times has a "Linux (Computer Operating System)" topic l  Ars Technica has a Linux.Ars section. These are just a random selection of the first few places I tried. Unless someone can name a few mainstream press sources that consistently prefer "GNU/Linux" to "Linux", or any database search where the terms are even close in popularity, I don't see how the issue could even be in question. This is like arguing over whether there is more water in my bathtub than in the Pacific ocean since we don't have a published source comparing the two. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Mainstream press" is an obvious, straightforward context for "far more/most ...". How about if we mention those claims in that context?  Other contexts are more problematic and often (by definition since they are not as mainstream as the mainstream press) less interesting to an average person. Freed42 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it weakens the position artificially by implying that the situation is different in scitech circles, which still hasn't actually been proven (and almost certainly isn't really the case anyway). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted the last edit because it made the whole para unbalanced strongly in favour of "GNU/Linux" without citing any refs that lend a reason to do so. This article is about a controversy and so has to be especially WP:NPOV. This means that the opening sections especially must be balanced. - Ahunt (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Need a better reference in _Opinions supporting "Linux"_ section
This section leads off with the sentence: "'Linux' is by far the more widespread name,[24], while references to 'GNU/Linux' appear only infrequently in mainstream sources."

One problem with this sentence is the reference to Google Trends. Trying another comparison, say, "Linux" vs. "and/or" shows that "and/or" also does not show up on the graph like "GNU/Linux". However, "and/or" has more than double the number of hits as does "Linux" in a Google news search! Other slashed expressions show similar problems. Clearly, Google Trends is not up to the job, and should be replaced with a legitimate reference.

Another problem with Google Trends is that the graph is for search volume, which is not necessarily the best measure of use. An obvious problem here is that one of the most elementary strategies used (and advised) in any kind of search is to just use a substring of a term. Thus, "Linux" would tend to be used by even those who would use in other contexts the more accurate term, "GNU/Linux". One does not search the same way that one might ordinarily communicate. This problem of search volume is compounded by automated searches constructed by programmers who likely instinctively rely on substrings.

More generally, "Linux" figures will be systematically inflated in many varieties of searches as a substring of "GNU/Linux". Indeed, even more generally, there are other "substring" and ambiguity issues of "Linux". E.g., a page has a file name "linux-1.2.13", another "linux-2.6.24", etc. Clearly, these uses are not what is intended by this article, and, of course, there are no such equivalents for "GNU/Linux".

In any case, given the intense campaign to ban "GNU/Linux" by "Linux" proponents, it should be easy for these proponents to select a decent reference. In case one cannot be found, I will post a simple, ordinary Google search, e.g., comparing (Linux distribution) with ("GNU/Linux" distribution). This has the additional advantage that it is narrowing the focus properly by associating each term to the object of discussion, a distribution. - Freed42 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Over-use of quotes
The quotefarm tag was removed from this article again, with the rationale that the reliance on quotes had kept the article "stable". Stability is a requirement of Good and Featured articles, which this one isn't. Right now, the article's reliance on quotes is just an excuse to avoid the hard work of accurately portraying people's positions in prose. They should be rewritten or removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has plenty of prose; it's hardly just a collection of quotes. If you're describing someone's opinions on a controversial question, the best way to do it is to simply quote them.  I honestly don't see why you keep raising a stink about including quotations in this article.


 * Plus, the reliance on quotes has been mostly successful in keeping this article from degenerating into the continual flamewar it was before we demanded quotes from prominent commentators to back up additions. On a topic that is about differing opinions on an issue this prone to flamewars, removing the quotes and asking editors to paraphrase them is just an open invitation for spinning (or "improvements" to the arguments) by partisans.


 * If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


 * —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with —Steven G. Johnson - because of the nature of the subject matter the use of quotes is necessary and unavoidable. Given the level of controversy I don't see the quantity of quotes included as excessive or as detracting from the readability of the article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

...ehum...
What about the lugs? Should they be called glugs or gnugs? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 18:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * LUG members generally use Linux, so there's no problem. (But a LUG member who uses Hurd really needs a HUG.) --Zundark (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean they generally use the term "Linux". They generally use the system GNU/Linux. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he means what he wrote. They generally use the Linux kernel, hence they are Linux users. They probably also use GNU/Linux OS. But you can hardly use GNU/Linux without using Linux (the kernel). Matushorvath (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Linux is a specific trademark
Dispute can exist only if Linus Torvalds' trademark of the Linux name is ignored. The Gnu Foundation was started partly to make the Linux kernel immediately useful. When the Debian Project expanded to include certain non GPL-licensed code, it dropped the name "Gnu/Linux" because the GPL prohibits proprietary code.

"Linux" refers only to the kernel, technically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel.package (talk • contribs) 03:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you back up any of your claims? From what I found, the GNU Project predates the first version of the Linux kernel by several years. The Debian Project still uses "GNU/Linux" (December 2010).


 * I don't think anyone disputes the fact that "Linux" refers only to the kernel; the article hopes to shed some light on why some people think the package Linux+GNU+X+Apache+FreeCiv should be called "Linux", while others think it should be called "GNU/Linux". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.160.203.18 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing Guidance Needed
Recently on the pages for LXDE and Xfce, one editor changed Linux to GNU/Linux, followed shortly by another reverting it as a "GNU POV Addition." It is unclear to me what the Wikipedia policy here is. Should we attempt to standardize on one or the other, or should it be like UK/US English, where we let it stay as it is? Whatever the policy is, I would like an easy way to reference it when dealing with revert wars on the issue. A somewhat-related issue is GPL vs. GNU GPL. Again is there a policy preferring one over the other? Guy Macon 14:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your question. By long-standing general consensus on Wikipedia the term "Linux" is used to describe operating systems based on the Linux kernel. The term "GNU/Linux" is considered to be a "point-of-view" term used by a small number of supporters of the FSF. Every year or two we have this debate over again the result has been consistently the same, but still a few editors like to try to sneak "GNU/Linux" into peripheral articles for their own personal reasons and against the existing consensus, instead of trying to gain a new consensus. The background on this is found at Talk:Linux/Name and also in the complete list of archives for Talk:Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've got the message
I know I wrote my former post very angry, but It's the least this deserves from me, as a GNU user and enthusiast, as a system administrator, as a teacher, as a Linux [kernel] fanboy, and everything else. Here I go with some true facts (regardless if it bothers someone or not):

It's okay, let's call 'Linux' to the GNU operating system.


 * Would we call NTOSKRNL.EXE to Windows operating system?
 * Would we call "Linux" to Android OS?

I don't think so, and any answer would be like "because a matter of common sense, no one would call them like that.

I think that, until HURD would be stable (or at least useful), to say GNU/Linux may be a nonsense (unless we consider any kernel available). Linux is a kernel, not an OS. It doesn't do anything without libraries or services or some kind of superstructure. Same goes to GNU (I mean, GNU is a kernelless OS, so It wont run without a kernel), but GNU will run with Linux, HURD or BSD, it doesn't matter which one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.109.85 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Linux arguments
"Proponents of the Linux term dispute GNU/Linux for a number of reasons, such as the fact that the term Linux is far more commonly used by the public and media." How do we know it is more used? Since the term is used to refer to both a kernel and an operating system, it's difficult to discern what is actually meant when it is used in articles about kernel developers such as Theodore Ts'o. If Linux has a 'doom', would that mean the end of free software or the kernel itself?

I don't think I am the only one who agrees that Linus Torvalds doesn't mind people who use the term "GNU/Linux" as you can see in the discussion it ends with common sense. I am not sure how is that the those quotes from Linus really add up to supporting the "Linux" any more than "GNU/Linux". See he says "GNU Linux is ridiculous", which is actually in agreement with "GNU/Linux". In the other quote he says that the discussion has gone on far too long, which he is talking about the term "Lignux", which only lasted about 3 or so months? This controversy clearly isn't just about RMS, FSF, or "supporters", but also those on against the "GNU/Linux" term.Blackwidowhex (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The article justifies itself based on its claim that Linux is used more commonly among the public and media; however, that is not good enough reason. Several organisms are grouped into the bug and insect categories by the public and media. This has not resulted in a naming controversy over the alternative terms for arthropod on Wikipedia that I am aware of. Being that arthropods are more well known than the concepts of software, I am perplexed that Wikipedia would choose to hold this controversy article for any standard. This article still holds that GNU/Linux is only used by "supporters" (vague terms violate WP:MoS). In "General Public License 3.0: Hacking the Free Software Movement's Constitution", footnotes 9 and 15 back up that it is commonly called GNU/Linux and that Gomulkiewicz is an independent on the subject. Blackwidowhex (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that Wikipedia should not have an article on this subject then feel free to take it to WP:AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)