Talk:Linux/Archive 15

Merge this article with Linux distribution
I'd like to propose to merge this article with Linux distribution. Rationale:
 * the articles seem to be a duplication about the same issue
 * there's no actual "Linux" distro, this would be a generic term but it seems that "Linux distribution" is more appropriate.
 * "Linux distribution" would also clarify the "Linux OS" vs "Linux kernel" confusion when we talk about "Linux"
 * only objection that I could see is that if somebody takes a Linux kernel and add KDE and whatever tools he needs and creates an personalized OS we couldn't call that "distribution" it would need a generic term. But I think that's a marginal case. -- AdrianTM 19:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. (Note: the article is actually titled "Linux distribution"; "Linux distributions" is a redirect.) &mdash; A.M. 20:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I probably support this. There's actually very little useful commentary in Linux distribution, so merging here wouldn't cause too much of a size difference. Importantly though, someone needs to actually do the legwork here. Chris Cunningham 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; A.M. 00:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree -- I've commented on this before. I like the idea.  Note, though, that I only support this if it's Linux merged into Linux distribution, and not the other way around.  80.233.255.7 21:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. -- AdrianTM 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Linux is Linux, and a distro of it is a distro of it. It would be like merging car and car manufacturer. A Ford is a Ford, a Toyota is a Toyota. Both are cars, but a car is not a Ford, nor a Toyota. "Car" is a wider concept. If Linux and Linux distribution are too similar, or one or both are low quality/short articles, it is no excuse to merge, but rather to make an effort to make the articles reflect the concepts better. &mdash; Isilanes 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see what you mean, however if you take the general stuff about Operating Systems (vehicle) out from this article and the stuff about Linux (engine) what does it remain? These analogies are not always right... I mean there's not much to say about Linux if you talk about Linux kernel in other article and about Linux distributions in another... what remains that doesn't fit either kernel or distribution articles? -- AdrianTM 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "It would be like merging car and car manufacturer." It would be more like merging "Mammalia" into "Mammal" (and "Mammalia" does redirect to Mammal). The first sentence of "Linux" says:
 * Linux (IPA pronunciation: ) is a Unix-like computer operating system family that uses the Linux kernel.
 * Whereas the first sentence of "Linux distribution" says:
 * A Linux distribution often simply distribution or distro is a version of a Unix-like operating system comprised of the Linux kernel, all or part of the GNU operating system, and assorted other software.
 * So, Linux is a "family" where each member of the family is a Linux distribution. There is no reason to have separate articles for these topics. &mdash; A.M. 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't sound like a good idea, since "distribution" isn't really synonymous with "operating system". Given difference in meaning, and the size of the respective articles, I don't believe that merging Linux distribution into Linux is justified. --Yath 23:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ""distribution" isn't really synonymous with "operating system"" This article isn't about an operating system; it's about a "family" of operating systems. Furthermore, every operating system in that family is a Linux distribution. So, this article is about all Linux distributions, and nothing else. The article "Linux distribution" is also about all Linux distributions, and nothing else. Therefore, these two articles are content forks of each other; one of them should be removed. I suggest that "Linux distribution" be the one that is kept, because its title is less ambiguous than the title of this article. Also, size isn't a reason not to merge them; if the size of the resulting merged article is too large, then it can be edited down. &mdash; A.M. 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotta disagree with you there. They don't represent a content fork. Rather, Linux distribution is a subtopic. If it were smaller, it could fit into Linux as a section. But as it is, the resulting article would be too large. --Yath 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's a subtopic, then what is in "Linux" that doesn't belong in "Linux distribution"? If there is any such content, then it's probably something that belongs in "Linux kernel" (or is already there). Any content relevant to the topic of "Linux", as defined by its first paragraph, also is relevant to the topic of "Linux distribution", as defined by its first paragraph, because these topics are exactly the same. If there is any content currently in "Linux" that wouldn't belong in "Linux distribution", then it shouldn't be in "Linux" either. &mdash; A.M. 01:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * disagree. I'm trying to resist editing Wikipedia.  But for some reason, this page is just so damn interesting!  Why???
 * Anyway, instead of merging the two, why not try to identify the things that go in Linux distribution, and the things that go in Linux.
 * As far as I see it, Linux distribution should be about: 1) what packages actually go into a Linux distribution; 2) summary of the major different linux distributions; 3) the different kinds of distribution: technically (gentoo vs. debian. vs. LFS) and philosophically/commercially (debian vs. ubuntu vs. redhat vs. fedora vs. linspire); 4) package management and distribution installation
 * I think a distribution is something that involves actually distributing the collection of packages somehow to other people, even if it's just yourself. So for instance, if you take all the source files you need and just compile your own OS, without following the LFS method, that's not really a 'distribution', but it should be mentioned as an alternative, somewhere, somehow.
 * As far as Linux goes: the things that have nothing to do with distributing variants of the operating system, except for a summary of Linux distribution: 1) the linux community; 2) how linux is used by different people on different types of machines---note, this doesn't really have to do with distribution either---a discussion of KDE and GNOME and X and what they do is good for Linux, but it's not really applicable to Linux distribution; 3) comparison with windows; 4) linux trademark; 5) sco stuff; 6) pronunciation; 7) history (note: history of linux distribution is distinctly different: what were the first distributions, how did they evolve over time, when were the different major ones introduced?).
 * Currently I don't think the different subsections of "distribution" on the main article really have to do with distribution at all, that's why i moved them out, but my work was undone and i can't be bothered to try fixing things in a different way.
 * Perhaps the best way to think of it is this: Linux distribution should be about actually distributing linux, and Linux should be about everything else.
 * Gosh, I don't know, but this Talk page is crazy. It's really interesting how if you take a really nebulous and hard-to-define term that people will just argue over it for ever and ever and ever.  (Amen?)  Chris Pickett 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "So for instance, if you take all the source files you need and just compile your own OS, without following the LFS method, that's not really a 'distribution', but it should be mentioned as an alternative, somewhere, somehow." It is already mentioned on "Linux distribution", at least twice. Here:
 * Before the first Linux distributions, a would-be Linux user was required to be something of a Unix expert, not only knowing what libraries and executables were needed to successfully get the system to boot and run, but also important details concerning configuration and placement of files in the system.
 * And here:
 * By replacing everything provided in a distribution, an administrator may reach a 'distribution-less' state: everything was retrieved, compiled, configured, and installed locally. It is possible to build such a system from scratch, avoiding a distribution altogether. One needs a way to generate the first binaries until the system is self-hosting. This can be done via compilation on another system capable of building binaries for the intended target (possibly by cross-compilation). See for example Linux From Scratch.
 * "1) the linux community" That might be more accurately described as the free software community, or the Unix community.
 * "2) [...] a discussion of KDE and GNOME and X and what they do is good for Linux, but it's not really applicable to Linux distribution;" It is relevant to "Linux distribution", because they are some of the most user-visible "packages [that] actually go into a Linux distribution".
 * "3) comparison with windows;" The article "Comparison of Windows and Linux" already exists.
 * "4) linux trademark; 5) sco stuff; 6) pronunciation;" These should go on "Linux kernel", since they're directly related to the kernel.
 * "7) history (note: history of linux distribution is distinctly different: what were the first distributions, how did they evolve over time, when were the different major ones introduced?)" I would prefer to merge the history section of "Linux" with that of "Linux distribution". The history section of Linux distribution mentions that the earliest distributions made it easier to install the "libraries and executables [that] were needed to successfully get the system to boot and run", but doesn't say where those "libraries and executables" came from; that information is mostly what's in the history section of "Linux". If they were combined, it would be less fragmented, and would reflect the chronological order better: userspace software was developed, then a kernel was developed, then both were put together to make distributions.
 * "Currently I don't think the different subsections of "distribution" on the main article really have to do with distribution at all, that's why i moved them out, but my work was undone and i can't be bothered to try fixing things in a different way." The first two, "Desktop" and "Gaming", relate to "1) what packages actually go into a Linux distribution". The third, "Servers, supercomputers and embedded devices", is partly about server software (which distributions include). The sixth, "Support", relates to support for entire distributions (for example, the "commercial suppliers" that it mentions are often Linux distributors).
 * "[...] and Linux should be about everything else" Most or all of the "everything else" is already in Wikipedia somewhere. Also, most of it isn't particularly related to Linux, but is more related to free software and/or Unix in general. I would prefer instead for "Linux kernel" to be moved to "Linux", since "Linux" is what the kernel developers call the kernel, and because it would remove that "Linux kernel" vs. "Linux distribution" ambiguity. &mdash; A.M. 03:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC) A.M. 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. All I can say is, have fun arguing over the contents of the new Linux page!  Chris Pickett 04:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A.M., Chris, I don't think many people will read comments of that length. If there is silence, please don't interpret it as meaning that either of you have convinced everyone. Gronky 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Convincing everyone is impossible. In the absence of unilateral agreement, however, a broadly-popular conclusion with a clear rationale is acceptable. Chris Cunningham 09:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree We already have a distribution section in the Linux article. How long do you want to make it? Freedom to share 10:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Considerably so. It makes no sense to separate the concepts when Linux is distros. See my merged page. Chris Cunningham 11:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree also. There is a big difference bewtween Linux and Linux distributions. The article should stay divided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ANTROPOCENTRIO (talk • contribs) 23:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Care to explain what's the big difference? I'm curious to find out. -- AdrianTM 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And why the tag was taken away from Linux article? I think this is a serious and important proposal that has to be seen by as many people as possible. -- AdrianTM 00:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually forget this, I read a little bit in this talk page and come to conclusion that this is doomed to fail and when I will come back to this page in about 5 years I will still see the Linux vs. GNU/Linux "debate" going on. Have fun! -- AdrianTM 00:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Merged version
I've put up a WIP here. The second half needs serious work to bring it up to the standard of the non-merged version, probably by deleting a lot of it. Thanks to User:A.M. for working on this.

I strongly suggest that the merged version be named Linux. Merging the other way just means having another argument about where this should redirect to. Chris Cunningham 10:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * linux should probably be a disambiguation page, since coloqually it may mean the Linux kernel or a GNU/Linux operating system AKA GNU/Linux distributions. --MarSch 12:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We've had that discussion. Most people, kernel developers included, make no particular distinction between Linux-the-OS and Linux-the-kernel, and given that the latter use is considerably more specialised, policy dictates that the wider usage be given the article. It has borne out in the past that the only people arguing for a disambig page are people who are unwilling to refer to Linux-the-OS as "Linux", which is a minority position. Chris Cunningham 15:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason it's named "Linux" is because "distribution of Linux" or "Linux distribution" is too long for anyone to bother using them. Linux is obviously ambiguous, unlike the other two.  What's more important then?  To preserve ambiguity for the sake of sticking to a popular shorthand?  Or to avoid it entirely by using a less popular yet equally accurate and unambiguous alternative?  80.233.255.7 21:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "It has borne out in the past that the only people arguing for a disambig page are people who are unwilling to refer to Linux-the-OS as "Linux", which is a minority position." If the majority position always determines the name of an article, why isn't "Narcissus (flower)" named "Daffodil", or "Influenza" named "Flu" (or "Avian flu" named "Bird flu"), or "Softmodem" named "Winmodem", or "Sodium hydroxide" named "Lye", or "Sodium bicarbonate" named "Baking soda", or "Pound sterling" named "Pound", or "Telephone" named "Phone", or "Family name" named "Last name", or "Given name" named "First name"? Sometimes it's appropriate to use a more correct or less ambiguous name for an article, even if there is a more commonly used name. &mdash; A.M. 10:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good thing if you want to merge Linux distribution into this article, but it may need to be split out in the future once a bunch of cleanup has happened. Chris Pickett 17:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it can be. It's been tried, but the fact is that the distro concept is so essential to the OS that the core must remain here. Chris Cunningham 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm totally confused, I thought I was agreeing with you. 199.246.40.54 19:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, you were talking about the splitting, I thought you were talking about the merging. IMO, splitting can always happen: if a section gets too long, write a summary and split it out.  Merging still seems like a good idea right now regardless, just as long as Linux is the target (because of disambig/redirect arguments).  Chris Pickett 06:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Update
I think the current version is sufficiently decent to warrant discussion of whther it should be changed. Chris Cunningham 13:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You should change the tags to mergefrom/mergeto for Linux/Linux distribution. I still maintain that separate subsections on desktops, gaming, development, education, embedded devices, servers, supercomputers are good, and don't *really* have to do with distribution.  They're usage scenarios---yes, these things are part of distributions, but there's an argument that everything is, so I still think it's better to separate things out.  The primary motivation being that those are all potential candidates for entire articles unto themselves, and making them into sections encourages that; eventually the section can become a summary of the main article.  You also killed the bit I had about Linux being used as the platform of choice in technical disciplines at universities worldwide; that wasn't hyperbole.  Academics love Linux.  Chris Pickett 20:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The alternative layout was reverted because it was directionless, and too intent on picking at the definition of "usage". The education section was removed because it was fawning, unsourced OR which looked so out-of-place that removing it entirely seemed to be more constructive than wishfully tagging it for expansion. I'd be happy for that to go back in. Chris Cunningham 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Opposed, per my comments above. Linux is ambiguous, Linux distribution is not.  Confused visitors is worse than a policy not followed.  80.233.255.7 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what Linux (disambiguation) is for, and it's appropriate according to Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The majority of the time, Linux means the OS, not the kernel.  Furthermore, most people just say Linux instead of Linux distribution, e.g.  "I use Linux." instead of "I use a Linux distribution.", or "Linux sucks." instead of "All Linux distributions suck."  That's just how it is, regardless of correctness or what-have-you.  I do think a page specifically about the distribution process and a comparison between them is useful, so on that grounds I'm against the merge, but a cleanup to remove duplication only between articles is good, even if that cleanup involves a merge.  (And later unmerge if it becomes abundantly clear that a Linux distribution page is necessary.)  Chris Pickett 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "The majority of the time, Linux means the OS, not the kernel." There isn't an OS that's called "Linux" (and nothing else), unless "OS" is synonymous with "kernel".
 * Lacking any authority in computer science to say that it isn't (and we've already established that there isn't one in previous discussion: "operating system" is an ambiguous term these days, full stop), there's nothing wrong with calling Linux an OS, and there's certainly nothing compelling anyone to name the most-used end result after a particular contributor. But I'm not having this discussion. This isn't a good-faith reason to oppose given that the article already describes Linux as a complete OS. Chris Cunningham 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Furthermore, most people just say Linux instead of Linux distribution, e.g. "I use Linux." instead of "I use a Linux distribution.", or "Linux sucks." instead of "All Linux distributions suck."" Those people might be referring to the kernel; if they're using a Linux distribution, then they must be using Linux (the kernel), so it's correct for them to say "I use Linux". It's also possible that they don't understand the difference between a distribution and the kernel, in which case they're effectively referring to both as "Linux". However, just because some people don't distinguish between a distribution and the kernel doesn't mean that Wikipedia shouldn't do so. &mdash; A.M. 09:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Amen --MarSch 11:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In this context "Linux" is merely an shorthand. There is no difference between "Linux the OS" and "a Linux distribution".  An unambiguous and more accurate alternative exists, yet you insist that the one that "most people say" be used.  Something I'm missing here?  Are there any shortcomings at all to using that alternative?  80.233.255.7 14:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to all of you together. I would really like to withdraw from this, but I consider that a response is only polite.  What it all comes down to is that I don't agree that "Linux distribution" and "Linux" are synonymous.  I don't think "GNU/Linux distribution" and "GNU/Linux" are synonymous either.  This just comes from my personal experience in the way I've seen and heard the words used, and consequently written and spoken them myself.  When I drop the "distribution" part, it's always referring to some part or all of the collective whole.  For example, "This software runs under GNU/Linux."  When I use the "distribution" part, it's always in the context of discussing the act of distribution, or the features particular to distributions.  For example, "Debian is a GNU/Linux distribution."  One is specific, one is general.  Now, I'm not an authority by any means, this is again just based on my personal experience, so I think it's best if I just back out completely here.  Chris Pickett 15:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * GNU/Linux and GNU/Linux distro are not synonymous, but each individual GNU/Linux distro already has its own page, and I think the common issues between each distro are close enough to the OS that they can be discussed on the page about the OS. So, although I oppose the suggested merge due to the content, I think the general idea of a merge is good (although not mandatory). Gronky 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "What it all comes down to is that I don't agree that "Linux distribution" and "Linux" are synonymous." "Linux" is used in two ways; one is synonymous with "the Linux kernel", and the other refers to Linux distributions in general. Currently, this article seems to be mostly about the latter usage, but partly about the former usage as well, so it conflates the two. Furthermore, since there is already an article about the Linux kernel, and there is already an article about Linux distributions in general, this article is redundant with one or both of them.
 * "One is specific, one is general." The article "Linux distribution" is about Linux distributions in general. &mdash; A.M. 05:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I oppose the proposed merge. The proposed merge text is worse than the two existing article.  The general idea of merging these topics is probably (I'm not 100% sure yet) a good idea, but this specific proposal is bad. Gronky 16:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Second comment: Your current proposal does two things: it merges the articles, and it minimises the main component (GNU). This gives people two reasons to reject your proposal.  Currently, both articles start off with a mention of the main component (GNU).  If you just want to merge the two articles, then the merged version should also start by mentioning the main component (GNU).  But if minimising the main component is your goal, then proposing a merge is not the correct way to do it. Gronky 18:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If this proposed version isn't good enough, it can be improved. That's not a reason to oppose the merge. &mdash; A.M. 05:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I support a merge at all, but I definitely don't support replacing both articles with user:Thumperward/Linux. It is obvious what is necessary in order for such a proposal to have broad support.  Getting it right is a matter of choice and the author chose not to.  I don't know if I have time to edit proposals as well as articles and Talk pages. Gronky 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "minimising the main component" has already been completed, as the article already avoids avocating minority GNU zealotry. The proposed merge doesn't change the slant of the article, it just eliminates a confusing split. Chris Cunningham 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, so your proposal is not about a merge at all, it's about getting rid of GNU. Then you can probably see why it won't get broad support. Gronky 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

New Proposal: Make Linux a mirror (or rather, superset) of the French version?
Ok, this is something I've wanted to say for a long time. I really like the French page. It's balanced, it tells the history pretty well, and it doesn't conflate distribution with usage. Maybe what would be really good is for en.Linux to become a sister/twin flags/whatever page with fr.Linux. (I don't know how this is done, but I've seen a template being used before to indicate that two language versions are supposed to be synchronous.) It really helps that the French page is a featured article. I don't know if it's useful, but I found this: WikiProject_Echo with minimal searching. If the French page was used as a model for the Linux page, and the French Linux distribution page used as a model for the Linux distribution page, I would be happy with it. Chris Pickett 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Update: I see it's already been identified by WikiProject Echo. Chris Pickett 02:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree Mike92591 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, because it also does not sufficiently distinguish between the kernel and distributions. &mdash; A.M. 05:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by sufficiently? It seems like its pretty obvious that they're not the same.Mike92591 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no point in making english articles mirrors of french articles. If they have structured some particular articles in an interesting way, then you should be proposing that we do that too and include an explanation of that structuring. --MarSch 12:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, an exact mirror would delete content here. So how about a merge of structure and content on the French page that isn't here.  Remember, it's a FA, and it would be a quick way to bring this article to FA status IMO.  FA status seems like a pretty good goal.  Chris Pickett 18:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * FA status does not mean the same thing across all wikis. Missing content should of course be added here. Please articulate what structure you see the French page as having that we don't. --MarSch 10:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi MarSch. Rather than spend a lot of time articulating, I'm just going to translate missing bits slowly and add them to the main page.  You can review my edits there.  You can also click on the French page, and even if you can't read French it's pretty clear just from the section headings how it's different from the English page.  How about I ask you: is there anything on the French page that you would not like to see here?  Chris Pickett 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I already said I am in favour of including missing information, so please go ahead.--MarSch 11:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree Mike92591 19:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Nevertheless, English speakers tend to pronounce the name as [ˈlɪnʊks] or [ˈlɪnəks].
 * I have deleted the following line as it was unsourced. I heard it being said that way, but could anyone find a source.

Thanks, Freedom to share 17:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I reverted you. It's useful to have alternate pronunciations, it wasn't false information.  Nobody I know says it like Linus does.  Chris Pickett 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Freedom to share was just asking for a source, not saying it's false information. 80.233.255.7 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I thought I was asking for source by putting , but that tag hasn't been up nearly long enough for someone to find or create one.  I mean, I could record 10 different English speakers saying Linux, or more even, but it will take a while.  I think if the sentence gets deleted, it will just get forgotten about.  It's pretty benign, IMO.  Chris Pickett 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, no offence taken, really. It's just that removing a statement without a source backing it seems quite reasonable to me, so it looks kind of ugly when somebody reverts such an edit yet doesn't provide the source.  I'm not actively watching the article, though, so if there really was a recent citation needed template, then I don't see a problem with keeping the statement.  (Generally, it should have been there for a week or two before removal.)  80.233.255.7 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, what happened was, it didn't have the CN template, so FTS removed it, I added it back with the template (since I agree, it should be sourced), and then about a day later it got deleted again, and I reverted that since the template was there. Just a misunderstanding somewhere I think.  Chris Pickett 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. No problem then.  80.233.255.7 01:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the Wikipedia is not a collection of everything we seem to know about a subject. It is an encyclopaedia. I believe that this means that all the material included in it must have a reference to give evidence that what we are saying is the truth. My opinion can probably best be expressed by the following statement by Jimmy Wales:

I believe that this pronunciation is exactly the kind of "random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information" that we are warned not to use. If we can find one webpage that is a primary (or secondary) source that talks about it, we can add it and the situation would change. Freedom to share 11:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, first of all, I think you're taking this a bit too seriously. Lighten up, this is supposed to be fun! :)  Second, did you try googling "linux pronunciation" and sorting through the results?  It's clear to me that plenty of people pronounce it differently, even if it's not Linus' "official" pronunciation.  Can you find a page there that you would accept as a citable source?  Chris Pickett 11:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we be looking for "[ˈlɪnʊks]" or "[ˈlɪnəks]" and not "Linux pronunciation"? 80.233.255.7 13:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I already found the reference. Thanks for your help. Freedom to share 15:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I found the same site while googling, however, I don't think it mentions either of the two IPA pronunciations. 80.233.255.7 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't read/edit IPA very well in my browser, but I think you're right 80.233.255.7. I do know that I've heard Lin-ecks and Lin-icks frequently, and that I tend to say Lin-icks, as do my friends/colleagues.  Please can you add the two new pronunciations and leave the  tag up for the original ones?  Cheers, Chris Pickett 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I did it myself. Please check that it looks okay.  (I hate font configuration.)  Linus' pronunciations in IPA form in Swedish and English are actually given by the new ref [15].  Chris Pickett 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking good. A little heavy on parenthesis, though.  The issue you're having is likely one with encodings and not fonts.  Make sure you're using UTF-8.  (The "View" menu in most browsers.)  80.233.255.7 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Firefox 1.5 on a Mac using their Optima font and set to UTF-8. I tried switching to several different fonts and it didn't make a difference.  I guess I could upgrade to 2.0.  The specific problem is that there are all these question marks ? for anything written in IPA... I can see some of the proper characters but not all of them.  I think it has to do with the accents.  Back on topic, I noticed that there appears to be yet a 6th pronunciation of Linux written out in the opening line at the top of the page.  Translating Linus' audio file into IPA may be non-trivial!  Chris Pickett 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources
(Freedom to share posted this on my user page, I'm moving it here.... I don't really know best how to answer)

Dear Mr. Pickett,

I have seen that you have reverted my edit in which I removed the uncited info about the pronunciation of Linux by English speakers. I strongly believe that any information without a source should be deleted immediately and aggressively and not be classified as {cn}. I would like to stress the following quotation by Jimmy Wales to support this argument.

I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar. 

Please note that I am not trying to start an argument or a fight. I am not sure if I am doing the right thing and it would be great if we could reach consensus on that issue. Neither am I asking for a barnstar. :-) All I want to do is to find out what would be the right thing to do from a Wikipedian's point of view. You may contact me by email if you wish to discuss this matter personally or on my user page.

Sincerely,

Freedom to share 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you look at the "tagging unsourced material" subsection of the link provided by the tag:, it indicates the tag is appropriate if the information is not harmful.  I didn't consider the information to be harmful in this instance.  Certainly if it was obviously wild speculation, that's one thing, but actually I think it's correct and also just useful to know.  Remember, we're talking about pronunciation of a word here.  I'd actually prefer to have this discussion on the Talk:Linux page.  Chris Pickett 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Linus said some things about the pronounciation of Linux. Let's have those and any other thing that can be referenced. --MarSch 12:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think http://www.paul.sladen.org/pronunciation/torvalds-says-linux.wav would be great to have. --MarSch 12:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Chris Pickett 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Initially worked on by ???
The second paragraph mischaracterises the initial developers as "individual enthusiasts", and says nothing more about them. Most of the initial developers were working for the GNU project to make a free software OS exist. This seems important and there's no reason to gloss over it, but given recent debates about the three letter word, I thought I should ask here first if there are objections to adding a few words on this. Gronky 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Be Bold. "Discussing this" (i.e. having the same argument again for the fiftieth time in a year) on the talk page isn't going to improve the article. You haven't even suggested an alternative phrasing to discuss. Chris Cunningham 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a few weeks late to this, but I'm removing most of this change. Why?  Look at the facts:  Linux didn't start in the 1980s -- Linus Torvalds himself will tell you that.  GNU != Linux -- you can use the GNU tools on non-Linux systems (Mac OS X and Windows Vista, e.g.).  Linux != GNU -- you can use the Linux kernel in embedded environments and build your own userland from scratch, if you like.  Also, X Window System and TeX have nothing to do with Linux or GNU... they are cross-platform applications.  -/- Warren 08:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

gplv3 and intellectual property
FSF have said that GPLv3 was motivated by software patents, DMCA, and EUCD. This article currently says that GPLv3 was motivated by "intellectual proprety laws" - but that overgeneralises to the point of no longer being accurate. If generality is our aim, lets replace "intellectual property laws" with "law". If accuracy is our aim, lets say what we're talking about (when it wouldn't take too long). So I'll remove the over-generalisation again, now that I've explained my reasoning for this small change. Gronky 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead. I don't think FSF has any issues with, say, trademark laws.  (Reportedly a part of "intellectual property laws.")  80.233.255.7 21:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In EU directives, "intellectual property" covers eleven different laws including "design schematics", "plant variations", and "geographic designations" (such as "Champagne"), and FSF definitely has no issue with those laws with regards to software. Gronky 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

tivoisation as a neologism
I recently noted in the article that GPLv3 was motivate by, among other things, "tivoisation". This change was reverted with a mention of "neologism" in the edit summary. I agree that it can be argued that "tivoisation" is a neologism. So I guess it would be ok if I said that GPLv3 was motivated by TiVo's use of DRM, and then link those words to the article that Wikipedia has on TiVo's use of DRM. (The name of that wikipedia article is "tivoisation", but I won't use that name in this article because it's debateably a neologism). Gronky 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If there is an article called tivoisation then I think it would be best to use that term.--MarSch 12:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Better yet, use a formal description and add a "also known as tivoisation" with a link to that article. 80.233.255.7 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't see why a link is required, given that GPL3 is essentially irrelevant to the article (because it's an unfinished licence that the kernel is never going to use). I don't feel it's worth padding this article over. Chris Cunningham 12:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kernel Type
The french version of this page refers to the kernel as being a "Modular Monolithic Kernel", whereas the english version calls it a monolithic kernel. Which is most correct? (Does en.wiki have an equivalent Mod/Mono spec?) Emyr42 23:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Both are correct, but the French is more accurate, as the kernel does have a strongly modular design. (although this wasn't always the case) —Pengo 12:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Interoperability

 * I deleted the following, because I think is flawed logic:

''Linux is an operating system underdog competing with mainstream operating systems. Accordingly, Linux and the free software that comprises it must support interoperability.''

As far as I can see, Linux does not work towards interoperability or supports standards because it is an underdog. It does so because of its philosophy. As free software, it is hard to see why it would dismiss interoperability even if it had a 99% market share. It is proprietary software makers who abhor interoperability, because it makes monopolization more difficult. &mdash; Isilanes 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are two reasons why interoperability is important. 1) money: commercial vendors are certainly interested in interoperability, and this was the basis for the underdog sentence.  2) free software philosophy says you should have the freedom to run whatever software you want on whatever hardware you want and not be hindered by needless limitations.  I put the sentence there primarily because the subsection needs opening somehow.  If you want to write something better that takes both views into account, I would be much obliged---I happen to agree with both views, and thank-you for bringing this up, it will make it more neutral.  Cheers, Chris Pickett 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A call for clear distinctions!
It is extremely important for everyone to come to the realization that Linux is simply an operating system kernel, and that GNU is the culmination of many free userland utilities. GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux are the most correct forms of referring to the whole operating system that utilizes the userland GNU and kernel Linux.

We have mutually buttressed evidence and reason to call it GNU/Linux. With that in mind, I am sure you have heard the arguments, and probably conjured some retorts.

But, it is in the best interest of an encyclopedia (and a free encyclopedia, at that!) to create a clear disctinction between:


 * The complete operating system (GNU/Linux)
 * The kernel in question (Linux), and
 * The userland tools (GNU)

Making a clear disctinction between the three is the most clear way of thinking about them.

The phrase "GNU/Linux" is the most technically accurate method to name the operating system.

In conclusion, I propose a massive rewrite - creation of the articles


 * GNU/Linux (A holistic entry concerning the entire system. GNU+Linux might redirect here, perhaps.)
 * Linux (An entry about the kernel itself -- nothing more, nothing less.)
 * GNU (An entry about the userland utilities and possibly philosophical implications, etc.)

You may come to me, saying, "Wikipedia is all about NPOV information". This I totally understand. In respect to that, an encyclopedia should seek to be the most accurate source of information. Calling the operating system "GNU/Linux" is the most technically accurate term, and it should be known as such.

I will assist in the writing process. Any takers? Dkrogers 23:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dkrogers. Respectfully, I would ask that first you read all of the talk archives available in the top right-hand box.  If you want to make balanced and accurate summaries as you go, I think that would be extremely beneficial.  Cheers, Chris Pickett 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I do still think that the GNU/Linux page is the right place to discuss these issues re: naming, and should be done by moving GNU/Linux naming controversy there.  It seems to benefit everybody involved.  However, there is still work on this page that can be done, and so that is the focus of my attention for now.

You misunderstand, Linux was the name given to the operating system since it was uploaded. GNU is the name given to the operating system the GNU Project was trying to make since it was announced. GNU/Linux is the alternative name given to Linux because a bunch of people were pissed because they didn't get the recognition that they believe they deserved. IMHO they do deserve more recognition but linux isn't an incorrect name for the operating system. Mike92591 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

By stating "Linux *is* an operating system...." this page is already making a stand in respect to the naming controversy. I made a minor correction so that the sentence would read " Linux is often referred to an operating system using the kernel Linux..." so that it is more in line with the wikipedia guidelines but it was edited back for some reason. I think the current version just goes against the wikipedia guidelines. It's NOT neutral.


 * Something must be done. Dkrogers 17:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The GNU/Linux naming controversy is acknowledged in "The Linux name", and "GNU/Linux" is in the second sentence. Did you read the archives? Chris Pickett 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read the archives in the past. Dkrogers 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)