Talk:Linux/Archive 20

Criticism section.
I noticed at the top of the page it says we need to improve it -- so presumably, it was removed. I know that I, personally, would like to have a list of criticisms from good sources, and responses to them; such as at this debate. I wouldn't know where to get started though, so I could use some help -- L augh! 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Criticism sections in articles like this are almost always a bad idea. This is a summary-style article; I can't think of any criticism which wouldn't be better targeted at the distribution article, or the kernel article, or the KDE one or whatever. And they attract idiots like almost nothing else on WP. Chris Cunningham 09:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed here: Talk:Linux -- AdrianTM 12:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, just wanted to see -- L augh! 20:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that Criticism is an essay, not a policy. That said, criticism of Linux in general seems to be quite rare; perhaps due to its very small userbase and/or because of the fact that it is generally distributed at no cost. &mdash; arcsec(x) 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That essay is indeed an essay, but this is a guideline which discourages splitting information based on 'pro' and 'anti' divides. Combined with WP:NPOV it is quite a clear cut case that criticism sections and articles should not be used - unless, I may hasten to add, criticism of a subject is a notable subject in itself.Localzuk(talk) 07:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I should add that "Criticism..." might be an appropriate section in art, literature, theatre articles, an OS is not (although some people might claim otherwise) an art item that demands criticism, an OS might have advantages and disadvantages for some group of users, and those should be organically integrated into the article -- for example if the OS is unsecure it should be mentioned in a section about Security (with required references of course), not in a "Criticism of..." section, same thing goes for usability and compatibility and whatever you might think of. -- AdrianTM 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation
I am unfamiliar with the phonetic alphabetic spelling of the pronounciation. It is Line-ux or Linn-ux? I would have thought that the former was more consistent.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  14:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, using "lie-nucks" is a community faux pas. The accepted pronunciation wavers between "lee-nucks" and "linnucks" depending on who you're talking to. As for consistency, it's only consistent if you pronounce Mr Torvalds's first name like the Peanuts character, which isn't usual for Finns. Chris Cunningham 15:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've always pronounced it somewhat like "LIN" (as in Linens) "ucks" (as in sucks), which is fairly accurate to our source. Torvalds might pronounce it closer to "LIE-E-NUX" from the recording, but that's probably just from it being choppy or low quality --L onging.... 15:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's not pronounced like “sucks” without the first s. It's pronounced line the name Linus, just subsitute the s with an x. Or learn to read the International Phonetic Alphabet. --mms 17:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There used to be all 5 or 6 different pronunciations here but somebody removed them with the goal of "improving" the article. Check the version history.


 * Because using unsourced and obviously incorrect (when we have a statement and sound message from the person that originally thought of it) pronunciations would be as stupid as saying that Linux could also be spelled as Lunix, Linos, Steve, or Liiiiiinext. Mispronunciations shouldn't exist anymore than misspellings should. And as to MMS above, I'm comparing the way I say it to the way Linus pronounces it with the way I pronounce it, which I am fairly close to. That said, as in sucks is probably a bad example, as it's more drawn out than linux is. It's the same sound, but it's quicker, with linux. It also has a bit more of an "I" sound to it, almost as if you had "LIN" and "NIX" and just merged them together. Not quite LIN-IX and not quite LI-NIX, and not really LIN-NIX either. Any way you spell it out, my pronunciation is close to Linus, if not the same --L onging.... 23:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To solve this "problem", can anyone edit the sound and make an .ogg file with Linus' Linux pronunciation and add it in the opening? (from here of coursem, or can we even use that .wav directly, what is the WP policy about audio formats?) -- AdrianTM 23:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That page doesn't state what license it uses, so we can't use it, especially considering it's definitely not fair use to use it to advance our own purposes. You know what, it's a long shot, but I'm just gonna email him and ask if he can record a sound file for us to use --L onging.... 23:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Arguing that Linus' pronunciation of Linux is the only correct one is like arguing the Queen's pronunciation of Great Britain is the only correct one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.152.64 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 2 August 2007


 * There's no such thing as right pronunciation (or name as a matter of fact) in general, there's no International organism that rules about pronunciation, however I would assume it's important to listen to the pronunciation of the guy who came up with the name in the first place. Also, please remember to sign your comments, otherwise people will consider that you are a troll and will not respond to your posts. -- AdrianTM 06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So the fact that a big list of names got deleted is predicated on some editors' assumption that it is important to listen only to Linus' original pronunciation, regardless of the fact that lots (thousands? tens of thousands?) of people pronounce it differently all the time? And they were sourced pronunciations too.  It's not like Linus' pronunciation (which I have never heard anybody but Linus use and I work in Linux-based IT) was ever deleted.  What is the point in signing my posts?  It's a dynamic anonymous IP that changes daily.  --The same guy as before.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.158.3 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 August 2007


 * If you don't start respecting WP:TALK and WP:SIG I'm going to just start removing your comments. They're in place for a reason, just follow them. As to the pronunciation, first of all they were unsourced and cluttering up the article, second of all, they're incorrect, and it's that simple. If millions of people say that the sun revolves around the earth, should we say that "alternatives to the earth orbiting the sun include this and that, and are also acceptable"? --L-- 13:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Language is a living thing, it evolves. You could even have "common mispronunciations include X, Y, and Z."  Anyway, whatever, do what fancies you, whatever makes you feel important.  You clearly have trouble not equating facts (millions of people think the sun revolves around the earth) with conclusions mistakenly drawn from facts (the sun actually revolves around the earth).  Wikipedia is a waste of time/life/energy/brainpower, I'm going outside.  --The same guy as before.  206.248.158.3 14:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Languages evolving also includes things like SMS speak. Shud we strt usin that 4 wp articles 2? --L-- 14:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly, there's a big difference between someone who just happens to rule something, and someone that came up with the name in the first place, and invented the thing. Arguing Linus' pronunciation of Linux is the only correct one is like arguing that a parent's pronunciation of their child's name is the only correct one, which I don't think many people will argue with --L-- 13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Silly argument. Was it Shaw that said we can spell fish "ghoti"? If a parent names a child then the "correct" pronunciation for that child is that chosen by the parent. NOT any other populist opinion. If I mispel and name my child "Elvis" but pronounce it "Bob" what right does anyone have to tell me that my pronunciation is not the correct one. In South Australia Linux is almost exclusively pronounced "Line-ucks". If Mr Torvalds pronounces it "Leen-uks" (with only half an "u") then he is correct and we are not. Personally i think the IPA version stinks because that suggests we should pronounce it more "Lin-ooks". Oh, and if my history serves me, the Queen did not "create" Grate Brittin. SAFTAG 15:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And if Torvalds spelled it as Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116nix but pronounced it as "Albinix", who would we be to argue with him? --L-- 12:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are in a big error about what Wikipedia does here. Wikipedia doesn't advocate any pronunciation, it uses reliable sources to present information, Linus Torvalds is a reliable source in this field, if you can come up with other reliable sources that show a different pronunciation you are free to add them (as long as it does not qualify as undue weight on a minority view). -- AdrianTM 16:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I have opened a can of worms here. I have added the word 'disputed' after the pronounciation in the article and let's just leave it at that good people.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  08:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've undone this. Disagreement does not mean that something is "disputed"; nobody's saying that Linus Torvalds is wrong in how he pronounces it. A can of worms it is indeed, and we shouldn't be banging to lid off again by tagging the article. Chris Cunningham 08:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well whatever Chris. It seems pretty clear that the pronounciation is disputed but I'm not about to get into an edit war about it. Leave it as it is if you feel strongly about it.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  11:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, find a reliable refernce to dispute something, you can't despute it based on original research. -- AdrianTM 12:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The IPA version doesn't stink. SAFTAG interprets it that it suggests we should pronounce it more like “Lin-ooks”. I'm not a native English speaker but I guess this gets pretty much close. The vowel in the second syllable isn't like the one in “sucks” but more as in “You”. --mms 11:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative kernels
How can alternative kernels be merged into this? With development on Hurd now at a point where X Windows and even web browsing are now possible, and the increasing GNU/OpenSolaris movement, this is an increasing requirement. --Mattl 01:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This article is about the "operating systems that use the Linux kernel", for operating systems that use other kernels I suggest you add info to Unix-like or to their respective pages BSD, Hurd, etc. -- AdrianTM 06:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's a specific article for these: GNU variants. Chris Cunningham 07:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Distributions & No Viruses
Shouldn't we name a few of the distributions of Linux? Also, the fact that Linux getting a virus needs to be recognized as impossible.


 * We also have a list of linux distributions in our see also section. And Linux getting a virus isn't impossible, haven't you ever heard of the GPL? OK, all jokes aside, yes, but it isn't impossible, there HAVE been linux viruses, they're just not successful like Windows viruses. It's a matter of security and such, and that's probably better handled by our articles on computer security or unix --L-- 03:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The only way for an operating system to have no viruses is for it not to run any non-included code, or have any bugs, or connect with other computers. This is simply not possible or feasable, and unrealistic. Most operating systems however, are very resilient. Just remember that saying that no viruses can be run makes you sound like someone who shouldn't be editing anything. - 68.228.56.158 01:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not true-- non-windows systems don't have viruses because they're far too much effort to make for the little reward compared to Windows systems, not to mention the permissions management being much nicer. The last virus I heard of that even affected Linux system was an OOo virus-- which didn't effect the OS itself, just the program. Getting a virus on Linux, OSX, or other Unix-likes is effectively impossible, because they just don't exist, and if they did, *nix users are generally more computer savvy and don't do things like open random emails, or run programs just to see what they do --L ucid 01:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts
I'm not going to respond to people who don't sign their posts, hope other people will do the same. -- AdrianTM 02:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, furthermore I guess that new messages should be always posted below the most recent; if the new message belongs to a previous paragraph, then write a short summary or a reference to such paragraph, and after that, leave the new message.--B J Bradford 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mind responding to people that don't sign their posts, as long as they sign it after they're asked. After that you can grow up, read what people tell you to, and get along --L-- 16:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear user:L, I am sure that both AdrianTM and myself are just posting suggestions on how to improve the readablity of this page. Your above comment seems inappropriate, the words "after you can grow up" can be read as personal attack. Please note that I would like to move your former messages so that everything can be read in its own chronological order even by people that come here from time to time.B J Bradford 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about people that don't sign their posts after being told to- or ignore any rule after being told to, really. Sorry if the punctuation was vague. --L-- 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm very sorry if I may have mis-understood anything. Cheers, ;) --B J Bradford 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

External link to Linux.org
I'd like to know why over the months the link to GetGNULinux.org keeps being added and immediately removed.

I understand that Wikipedia is not a link directory - but I'm very surprised to see that Linux.org is always featured there. Honestly, just having an expensive domain name and calling yourself "the linux homepage" shouldn't justify being there. These people don't play a particular role in developing anything.

Quite arguably, Linux.org hurts the free/open-source world and the image of Linux generally (this is subjective, but I feel that many people share that feeling). By contrast, GetGNULinux.org has strictly no ad and is run by a non-profit organization.

So if not every site is added there (which I quite understand!), at least I'd like to see Linux.org treated with the same criteria. Do I get something wrong? Disclamer: I am heavily involved in the GetGNULinux.org site development.

Respectfully Ariadacapo 17:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You might want to see our policies on WP:EL and WP:COI if you haven't already. Other than pointing you in that direction, I'm not familiar enough with the subjects to draw an opinion, so I'll wait for some more people to jump in before I form an opinion or take a side --L ucid 17:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to decide this kind of issues, apparently linux.org has been registered in May 1994 and many people see it as an important source of info for Linux community. Now, not every site that has "linux" in its name should be listed more so for new sites that appeared like mushrooms after rain... and from what I see you have a specific interest to get your site listed, although I fail to see what's your interest in having linux.org removed. Anyway, this is good oportunity to open a discussion about what sites should to be listed here. What is the criteria? There are only few official sites: kernel.org, and www.linuxmark.org all the reast are not official. Also, should we include KDE, GNOME, Xorg sites since we talk about those in this article? -- AdrianTM 18:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response and helpful links to policies. In order to clarify: Yes I'd be really happy if GetGNULinux.org was listed, but no, this is not the point of my remark. I mentioned that site as a counter-example. Linux.org is not more "official" than most others. It's got tons of ads (casinos galore on homepage), and has messy content; I feel it has nothing to do here.


 * Along with the 2 official sites you mentioned AdrianTM, I feel GNU.org could be added. / thanks --Ariadacapo 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * gnu.org is listed in GNU article where it should, we can add it here if we add links to other components of Linux systems: KDE, GNOME, Xorg, etc. -- AdrianTM 20:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have a problem adding major parts of linux systems to "see also" and putting their links in their respective articles, but putting them on the main linux page seems a bit much. --L ucid 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then there should be no links on Linux. This confusion here is one reason I voted for naming this article GNU/Linux. kernel.org is the official website of the real Linux development. There is no consumer-website for Linux (the kernel). GNU/Linux on the other hand has by definition no official website. It is a class of operating systems. Besides linux.org and getgnulinux.org there are no sites I'm aware of who deal solely with GNU/Linux but are not (mainly) about one distribution. If we list websites of GNU/Linux-distributions who decides which ones we include? So I think it is best to list just getgnulinux.org (because linux.org is a mess) or we list additionally some fancy websites of the main components: gnu.org, kde.org, gnome.org. --mms 09:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah let's include all 400+ links to distros and all 1000+ to howtos and tutorials... Seriously we need only official sites: kernel.org and www.linuxmark.org and important components gnu.org, kde.org, gnome.org, x.org (name others that you think I missed) Who is this for this proposal? Aye, nay? -- AdrianTM 14:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't include kernel.org and linuxmark.org in this article. They would fit in Linux kernel (where linuxmark.org is missing at the moment). This article (Linux) is about the operating system a.k.a. GNU/Linux. The kernel is a component which is mostly invisible for the user. We could include a link to a user-orientated website of Linux (kernel) if there was one. Maybe we can regard getgnulinux.org as a subsitute for this besides being a general promotion site for GNU/Linux. x.org is also too technical to be included in this article. The average user nowadays uses the X-server which his distribution provides and he doesn't tweak anything with X. Those who do, know this site already. So I propose to include only: getgnulinux.org, gnu.org, kde.org, gnome.org --mms 16:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Talking about "invisible" things for somebody who uses KDE or GNOME, GNU tools are pretty invisible too, prove me wrong... -- AdrianTM 16:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the GNU tools are invisible as Linux for the avarage user. But GNU is the operating system which started the whole thing. GNU/Linux is a GNU variant. The philosopy (or ideology) behind it or the motivation to found it and still develop it is also important to the todays avarage user. --mms 13:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does this sound to me like POV pushing? -- AdrianTM 14:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it is. This is not an article on "GNU/Linux", which is an abstract concept invented by the FSF.
 * As for the issue at hand: if there aren't any official extlinks we should have an external links section. End of story. Chris Cunningham 17:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are POV pushing right here! GNU/Linux is what the article Linux describes. The Linux Foundation has a POV as well as the Free Software Foundation. If it's your POV this doesn't make it any more NPOV. The Linux Mark Institute and the Linux (Kernel) Archives aren't quite relevant or interesting for most readers or users. Also the prominent link Linux Documentation Project is questionable IMHO. I have added now links to getgnulinux.org and gnu.org. --mms 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GetGNULinux.org shouldn't be used because it doesn't really add anything to the article. Mike92591 03:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How about simply including a dmoz link? That way people can get all the links they want, and we don't have to worry about this...-Localzuk(talk) 12:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

opensuse/sled
"Others maintain a community version of their commercial distributions, as RedHat does with Fedora."

Or Novell with openSUSE. 89.201.132.64 11:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but we don't need to list them - just a single example is fine.-Localzuk(talk) 12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of tutorial sites...
"...but only one of them has been online since 1992, is continuously updated, contains information about almost any Linux topic imaginable, has been mentioned in the Linux kernel README, and is used by Debian as a source of documentation. Do your home work. 80.233.255.7 22:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)"

I posted this comment in reference to the Linux Documentation Project on AdrianTM's talk page, but it was promptly removed with an open-minded summary. His own apparent issues aside, the comment is however relevant to this article. In my opinion LDP deserves a link in the external link section. 80.233.255.7 23:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't discuss with anonymous persons on my talk page when the discussion belongs to the article talk page, anyway, Wikipedia is not a collection of links, when a site is not even official and there are thousands of similar sites (newer or older) it shouldn't be listed in the article, of course this is my opinion only if somebody can show me a good argument I can change my mind... but if you try to convince me try to find a consistent way to treat links listed in this article: "what features does a site has to have in order to belong here?" give me an answer to this question, build consensus and then we can judge all links with the same yardstick. -- AdrianTM 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that web sites be evaluated the same way any piece of information added to Wikipedia is evaluated: based on notability.  I gave you, in my opinion, sufficient evidence of the web site's significance.  Why do I see no such reaction to the linux.org web site being added?  80.233.255.7 00:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure linux.org belongs there either (I will remove it), again I would like to see some consistent way to treat links. -- AdrianTM 03:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for research: Criticism of Linux
I am unable to find, anywhere on the Internet, any serious and non-biased criticism of Linux and open-source.

Other than Microsoft, De Tocqueville, and SCO propaganda, there are no serious sources of information on this topic. A Google or Yahoo search on "anti-Linux" reveals plenty of topics on "anti-Linux attitudes" and "anti-Linux lawsuits," etc. The few "anti-Linux" sites are "anti-Linux on the desktop" or "anti-Linux for the average Joe."

I have a few problems with Linux and OSS myself, such as the effect on the ability of small businesses to develop and sell software, the decentralized means of development (including from a security standpoint), and the fact that the kernel consists of unofficial drivers (unlike DOS, Windows, and Mac).

Perhaps someone can do research to find Wikipedia-accepted sites with these and/or similar complaints? This would be a great, "fair and balanced" addition to Wikipedia.

-RedBlade7 15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There aren't really many. I really don't understand why people assume that there has to be a drawback involved. It's like saying "I can't find any non-biased criticism of the scientific method. Surely there must be some disadvantage to it." if there aren't any, there aren't any, and one can say so while retaining a neutral point of view. It's on your head to find reliable counters to this, not everyone else's. Chris Cunningham 15:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How is Linux's "superiority" a "fact" as compared to the scientific method? -RedBlade7 15:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't use the word "superiority", so I don't know why you put it in quotation marks. The point is that you don't get to slap a NPOV tag on an article and ask other people for sources to back it up. That's putting the cart before the horse. Chris Cunningham 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Chris, Why did you accuse me of "admitting I was wrong" in the edit when I specifically challenged you? -RedBlade7 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrase "I am unable to find, anywhere on the Internet, any serious and non-biased criticism of Linux and open-source" would seem to suggest that such a thing isn't really the source of dispute. Chris Cunningham 15:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Read a little bit up in this page and you'll see that this issue has already been discussed twice, if you look in talk archives you'll find more discussions about this. As for criticism of open-source this is not the appropriate page to ask for it, people can use closed source programs in Linux without problem. (BTW, in my personal opinion "criticism of open-source" belongs somewhere in the same category with "criticism of freedom"). Anyway as I mentioned Linux is not an art piece to have a "Criticism" section, if there are specific problems (relevant to an Encyclopedia and referenced by reliable sources) then they should be listed under the appropriate sub-category, not in a separate "Criticism" section. -- AdrianTM 16:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. RedBlade7, if you can't find anything - then maybe it simply doesn't exist. I would advise you to take a look at the NPOV policy again and ask you to read it thoroughly. NPOV does not mean 'has both positive and negative aspects discussed, regardless of prevalence and importance', it means 'covers in a neutral way, all important and notable aspects of the subject'. If there aren't criticisms enough to include, then we don't include any.-Localzuk(talk) 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Localzuk, obviously the opinions exist if I have them. My mother has had similar opinions longer than I have - that open-source is exploitation and is a waste of time with no way to make money (I disagree with the last part - it's just harder and the means are less ethical). And she's just a mainstream computer user with the ability to think, just like you and me! -RedBlade7 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You miss the point a bit there RedBlade7. Your view and the view of your mother are neither notable or important. Just because a bunch of people have views doesn't make them worthy of discussion. For example, I am all in favour of anarchism as a method of governing society, but my views should not be discussed on the Democracy page simply because they exist. Unless third party, reliable sources discuss the issues - which you admit above, they don't, then it is not notable enough for inclusion. So, as I said, please re-read the NPOV policy. Also, please read the verifiability policy.-Localzuk(talk) 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Adrian, how do you define "freedom?" People define "freedom" in different ways. There is the libertarian/conservative/classical liberal "freedom of" (negative liberties) and the modern liberal/socialist/communist "freedom from" (positive liberties). Also, a totalitarian can find plenty of criticisms of both types of freedom: neglect of traditional values, disturbance of the social order, slower political process, etc. So, that's an opinion as well, just like my anti-OSS opinion. -RedBlade7 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that the individual dissent of you and your mother does not a neutrality issue make. You can't find any reliable sources which can put forward valid criticisms, so it is possible to infer that this opinion simply isn't that widely held amongst informed and reliable sources. As such, assigning these sources zero weight in the article is entirely appropriate. Seriously, the talk archives are bursting with this stuff. Someone sticks a POV tag on the article roughly once a month for this kind of thing, and it's always eventually removed due to a lack of credible references. Chris Cunningham 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (incidentally, if it's so much harder to make money through open source software, I wonder who's paying my mortgage. The vast majority of programmers aren't indie shareware developers, and the vast majority of sysadmins get paid for fixing open source operating systems juts like they get paid for fixing Windows.) Chris Cunningham 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

RedBlade, you really need to look through WP:NPOV. It's rather specific that personal opinions do not matter. Also see WP:UNDUE for why you and your mother's criticism wouldn't be included, even if it was reliable and noteworthy. A lack of criticism is not bias in favor, it's simply a lack of criticism-- which, by the way, the article does have plenty of, put throughout the article in a neutral tone like criticisms pretty much always should anyway. For example, under the Ownership section, we have this: ''Linux [...is] licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2. The GPL [...] is sometimes referred to as a “share and share-alike”, “copyleft”, or viral license.'', viral license can be considered a criticism (as can the GPL in general, to a lot of people). Just because it doesn't have a bit shiny ==Criticism== above it doesn't mean that it isn't there, and just because it isn't there doesn't mean it should be -- lucid 19:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, "criticism" doesn't mean "advertising slogans of the competition" ... which is what the term "viral license" is. It's a term coined by Microsoft product marketing to make free software sound like a disease. Other cute expressions they started using around the same time were to say that the GPL is a "cancer" and "communist". We should avoid treating advertising slogans as substantive criticism, since they aren't. --FOo 19:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of free software makers that dislike the GPL. Even take a look at our own article on copyleft -- lucid 19:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course there are. But that's not relevant to the point here. I didn't say that all criticism of the GPL was invalid; I said that the specific term "viral license" was coined by Microsoft foks for the purpose of discrediting free software. It was part of a campaign to specifically discredit the GPL, but all free software more generally. It is not useful to Wikipedia's goals to misrepresent advertising as thoughtful criticism; we shouldn't be promulgating advertising memes at all. --FOo 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please let's not get distracted by this completely irrelevant topic. (For what it's worth, I'm one of those people who is strongly in favour of free software and free licenses but who nonetheless appreciates the mental imagery, if not the negative connotations, of "viral license", and who generally treats the FSF's last ten years of existence as having at best zero effect on the growth of free software.) Chris Cunningham 22:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Zero effect is a bit strong considering how many lines of code the FSF releases with their copyright on it per year... 206.248.128.53 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)