Talk:Linux/Archive 21

Ethnocentric note
I found this note in the text: "NOTE: /ˈlɪnəks/ is correct. Please do NOT changed it. While /ˈlɪnʊks/ is Torvalds' pronunciation, he is not a native English speaker, and cannot therefore prescribe how English speakers will pronounce the word. That is his (Swedish) pronunciation, not the official English pronunciation. /ˈlɪnəks/ is by far the most common pronunciation among English speakers. Paul G, 2008-01-19". This reasoning is ethnocentric, it tells that non-native speakers have less rights. I don't like the way this point is made by hiding it in the text. Klungel (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again Wikipedia doesn't decide what's the correct name or what's the correct pronunciation. What Wikipedia does is present how most of the people call something (see WP:NAME policy), ideally that should be referenced (only that's rather hard to reference a pronunciation) Anyway, it's not that relevant how Linus calls "Linux" not because of ethnocentrism, but because this is about how majority of people call it in English (being an English encyclopedia) not about how something "should" be called. Basically, Linus pronunciation is relevant, but it's not the rule for Wikipedia. Personally I pronounce it /ˈlɪnʊks/ but I'm not a native English speaker. -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So we agree that Linus does not play a role in prescribing what is right? Then his ethnic background as a "non-native" doesn't play a role too. Then remains the question "what pronounciation is used". That is a much clearer reasoning (I don't mind what the outcome is, I just do not like the note) :-) Klungel (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I tried to find something applicable here: Manual of Style (pronunciation) but I found only that foreign names can be presented in both foreign and English pronunciation, but in this case I don't know if we can call "Linux" a foreign name, it probably became more popular (and sooner) in English than in Swedish or Finnish. I will try to change the note to be more neutral. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) Klungel (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikilink GNU/Linux naming controversy in into
Hi. I would like to make the miniscule edit to the intro to make "GNU/Linux" (or 'alternate term "GNU/Linux"') a wikilink to GNU/Linux naming controversy. This should be completely non-controversial, but when I did it, it was reverted. That sentence is about naming, and it's about the name "GNU/Linux", so linking to Wikipedia's article on that topic just makes sense.

That's the only change I'm proposing - just a link, no changes to the text of the intro. When I was reverted, I was told "see talk", but I don't see anything here saying that that piece of text shouldn't be linked to that article. Please explain here if I've missed something. Thanks, and sorry about the drama over nothing. --Gronky 12:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I support this link, I think it makes sense. -- AdrianTM 12:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that there's a naming line in the intro, it could be tacked on there, but the link should be as clear and neutral as possible. There's a recurring pattern where links to things like GNU/Linux naming controversy, GNU variants and alternative terms for free software (which are essentially all storms brewed up by the FSF) seem to turn up all over the place without clear signposting as to what they are.
 * I'd also make the point that this clearly isn't an edit without a history, checking the page logs, so it's a tad disingenuous to suggest that it's completely innocuous. Chris Cunningham 12:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't get into accusations. Everyone is well aware of the meg of text that have been typed about the intro to this article. --Gronky 13:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The GNU/Linux link again
Actually, now might be a good time to bring this back up.

Over the last couple of weeks, I've systematically tidied general references to "Linux" in articles to wikilink directly to Linux for the sake of consistency. As for Sep 20, no articles on the article namespace link to "GNU/Linux". As such, it's free to be repurposed, by moving the controversy article directly to "GNU/Linux".

This does two things:


 * 1) Keeps Wikipedia consistent (because there'll be a clear distinction between the terms);
 * 2) Avoids a contrived name for the article. A personal observation is that articles with the word "controversy" in them never seem to get, well, particularly good.

Just a suggestion, but thought I'd bring it up (what with having hand-tidied over two hundred articles to make it so). Chris Cunningham 15:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. --Daniel11 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense, people who are interested in "Linux" usually want to read this article because that's the general use of the term as it was repeated over and over again in this page, while people interested in "GNU/Linux" term most likely want to read an explanation of the name in a sense of "what the heck is that GNU/ " or, "which name should I use GNU/Linux or Linux?" and less likely to want to read this article because the use of the term simply is not there. BTW, GNU/Linux proponents might support this because they probably prefer people to read the "controversy" article rather then be just redirected to this boring article.


 * Personally. I still think that Linux should redirect to a Linux distribution article because there's no such thing as a generic "Linux", I think that "Linux" is a merely a short way to say "Linux distribution" or "OS with Linux kernel" which to me are almost synonymous, the only thing that would be kind of left outside of such an article would be the self-build OS that's not a "distribution" per se -- but how many people build their OS by taking Linux kernel and adding other components manually, I think that ever LFS is considered in a large sense a "distribution") -- AdrianTM 03:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The funny thing of course is that "Linux" does not really name just one thing. It names several things. It's a word that programmers use when they mean the kernel, and a word that end-users use when they mean a product such as Ubuntu Linux or Debian GNU/Linux.


 * Sometimes we use disambiguation pages to deal with that sort of situation. However, in this case there's enough to say about the history of the general vague uncertain idea of Linux that it merits having this article as well as the others. --FOo 03:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, "Linux" would redirect to "Linux distribution" since that's the most common usage, and in "Linux distribution" there should be a dab link to Linux kernel article. "Linux distribution" would change a little bit the focus to include stuff from here, most of the stuff in this page can be very well used there. Alternatively, Linux could be a dab page which would offer "Linux (kernel)" and "Linux distribution" as options, of course in articles the links should link directly to the desired page. Also, we need to be careful about one issue, Linux is a trademark by using it as generic term we don't take that into considration and we actually weaken the trademark -- as a trademark it clearly refers to Linux kernel and can be used by distributions that use Linux kernel and get permission to use the term from LMI, there's no such thing as general vague uncertain idea of Linux -- AdrianTM 04:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Beware of essentialism. One shouldn't take it for granted that the trademark is the One True meaning of "Linux". After all, the word was used before there was even a thought of it being a trademark. Linus never applied for a trademark; he simply received it when it was taken away from a scammer. In any event, we aren't making a product and calling it Linux; we're writing encyclopedia articles about the various things that people call "Linux".


 * It seems to me a disambiguation page would indeed be a useful thing, but that having an article about the general phenomenon of Linux is more useful. --FOo 04:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what you said, I just wonder if there's a separated "phenomenon of Linux" outside of the Linux kernel and Linux distributions scope, and how much in this article belongs to either of the two issues. -- AdrianTM 05:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (unindenting because we're getting off track) There's previously been no consensus to move to Linux distribution and it's contrived anyway. One does not see many calls to move Microsoft Windows to Microsoft Windows family just because it's a large number of disparate products.
 * Could we get some consensus on whether redirecting GNU/Linux is a good idea or not? Chris Cunningham 07:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not. GNU/Linux is an operating system, not a naming controversy. --Gronky 10:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One does not see many calls to move Microsoft Windows to MS-DOS just because MS-DOS is used as a kernel/loader for Microsoft Windows, either.
 * I agree with Gronky that GNU/Linux is an OS, not a naming controversy. --AVRS 11:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * GNU/Linux is a POV, mostly a POV of RMS and adepts about what Linux "should" be called. Don't confuse a POV with reality. -- AdrianTM 11:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, it's also used by one of the oldest, largest, and most prolific (that is, widely imitated and spun-off) Linux distributions: Debian. --FOo 08:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, because GNU/Trolls won that fight, if you look at the initial Debian announcement you won't see any trace of "GNU" http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.development/msg/a32d4e2ef3bcdcc6?output=gplain -- AdrianTM 09:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that comment stands for itself as to the quality of your contribution to this effort. --FOo 07:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the name of the OS in Wikipedia should be GNU/Linux, with Linux being a disambiguation, and the kernel being described in Linux (kernel). The fact that Wikipedia uses the term  'Linux'  rather than  'GNU/Linux'  is enough for me to avoid as much as possible citing Wikipedia's  'Linux'  articles in any kind of publication, as a failure to properly represent the history of GNU/Linux means that a source is neither neutral, nor authoritative, and I am doing this to protect the readers.  Usually the term  'Linux'  to describe the GNU/Linux operating system is used by either newbies or people who don't like the FSF, GNU, or RMS.  Whether it is the most prevalent term it does not matter.  Would you call photocopying  'xeroxing'  if the term were really more popular today?  Wikipedia is an educational resource and as such it should attempt to use what is historically correct and avoid to add to the misinformation of the public by continuing erronous naming conventions.  GNU came before the Linux kernel, most early GNU/Linux distributions, like Debian GNU/Linux or Yggdrasil Linux/GNU/X, specifically included GNU in their name, and all GNU/Linux distributions today contain much more GNU code than Linux code, and Linux would be unusable for the average user without GNU as GNU provides such packages as bash, emacs, gnome, grub, and others, including the very important libc.  GNU and Linux were distinct communities and it was only through historical accident and the fact that they both used the GPL that their code was later combined to form a full OS.  Calling that combined code simply Linux is a diservice to the GNU community, where most of the code originates from, and is not neutral as it emphasises the Linux community over the GNU community.  FSF clearly explains in their FAQ the political agendas behind the people who call the OS simply Linux.  Richard M. Stallman (RMS) has also written some insightful essays on the subject .  As RMS explains, the GNU project aims to create a complete free OS, not just a bunch of software packages.  The Linux community seeks to crate a kernel, but it can only be used as part of an OS, and GNU is such an OS, therefore systems like Debian, Ututo, gNewSense, and others are more appropriately named GNU/Linux.   There are also technical problems with the term Linux describing the full OS, because as RMS explains people outside the technical fields cannot distinguish between the kernel and the OS (I have a BSc with Hons in Computer Science and I agree).  There are much more that could be said but now I have no more time to spend on this issue.  Full disclosure: I am an FSF Contributing Member listed in ThankGNUs 2007 (I have also donated to Wikimedia of course). NerdyNSK 22:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that when Linux started off, th GNU project was already working on its own kernel, Hurd (which continues, as well as the Hurd/L4 project, and you can try loading with Debian GNU/Hurd to see how a GNU system without Linux looks like... the average user takes no notice, as Linux is only a small part of most GNU/Linux distros). Imagine this situation: I develop an OS and a kernel, and then you come and remove my kernel and replace it with yours.  Would it be acceptable to call the whole OS by your kernel's name? Of course not! NerdyNSK 22:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, if I run KDE on top of FreeBSD many users of Linux/GNU/X/KDE (which in my opinion is the complete and correct name) won't notice the difference either, however "not noticing the difference" is not encyclopedic stuff. -- AdrianTM 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's not how Wikipedia works. Even if GNU/Linux is the right name for the OS, Wikipedia naming conventions say to call it Linux if most people call it Linux. The Burma discussion page had a long-running discussion on this point. 209.204.189.199 (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * NerdyNSK, I thought I read in PCWorld magazine that the Linux kernel came before GNU was finished, and 'hackers' were tired of waiting for GNU. Also, not to attack your reason for naming it GNU/Linux, but most people prefer to call it Linux since it is weird in a way to say two names for one thing. Doesn't slide of the tongue well to say a proper noun with a forward slash in it. Not to mention the confusion in verbal conversations when a person hears "New Linux". (Sorry, did not log in when I typed this :|) St33med (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

New Kernel
The new kernel version of Ubuntu, Gutsy is coming out in a few weeks. That will need updated. I already downloaded it and have it installed. Complex-Algorithm 21:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fubar Obfusco (talk • contribs) 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It is the new kernel for all Linux versions, and released on October 9. Ubuntu calls the version Gutsy when it applies to its OS. It appears that this has just been updated. Involuntary_instance talk  22:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not correct. Ubuntu's next distribution is named Gutsy Gibbon but this has nothing to do with the Linux kernel.  --Yamla 23:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of linux
Just did a search on criticisms of linux, and nothing really relevant came up. Is this really the case, or could this be Systemic Bias sneaking in? Granted, I'm certainly not expecting even a fraction of the criticisms found in the Microsoft EcoSystem, but I found it strange not even a paragraph was linked from that search. Search prompted after doing [|This Google search] 81.149.182.210 23:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See the archives. If there were valid, sourced criticisms they'd be added. Chris Cunningham 12:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Another point from talk archives: an operating system is not an opera or movie to need a "criticism and praises" section, flaws and drawbacks should be mentioned inside the article wherever is relevant to add them. -- AdrianTM 13:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * AdrianTM, you are right, but I wish you had made your point a little more forcefully. I see people complain that it seems unfair that *some* OSes have a "criticism" section, but others do not. Rather merely agree with AdrianTM in a way that may appear to be mere opinion, I'm going to use the sledgehammer of official policy, guidelines, or widely-agreed-with essays: Neutral_point_of_view, Words_to_avoid, Template:Criticism-section, and Criticism. Those explain why there should be no "Criticism of Linux" article or section, and why the same should be true for every OS. (Although oddly enough, the Talk:Criticism of Linux talk page still exists ...). --70.130.44.41 18:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for supporting me with official arguments. I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to do a FAQ for Talk page since this question will come up over and over again, because we'll be suspected that we are Linux fanboys when we are merely trying to upheld some good standards in this page. -- AdrianTM 18:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All the policy in the world will never prevent people adding "criticism" sections full of crap to articles on subjects they disapprove of; the policy we have means that it can at least be removed quickly. Linux is hardly the worst for this kind of thing; try looking after Al Gore for a couple of weeks.
 * As for Criticism of Linux, someone should take that to RfD. Chris Cunningham 09:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Many publishers and authors use GNU/Linux instead of Linux
There is a huge number of publishers and book authors who use the name GNU/Linux when referring to the operating system. An example is O'Reilly's Unix in a Nutshell: A Desktop Reference, Covers GNU/Linux, Mac OS X, and Solaris. I could find more examples or create a complete list had I the time I wanted. Perhaps we should listen to what established authors have to say instead of using a name no one but a few newbies use for the whole OS. NerdyNSK 04:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No comment -- AdrianTM 04:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Google isn't a way to settle arguments, but neither are lame anecdotes. That said, O'Reilly isn't a particularly good example anyway. Chris Cunningham 11:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the list of those using Linux would be longer than those using GNU/Linux. What really bothers me is when I see things like "GNU, the kernel of Linux". This is a never-ending war, like vi-emacs. I'd change the opening sentence to ... Linux is the kernel (that is, the core), of a group of operating systems ... or something like that, but I'm not going to. htom 13:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's mostly a POV pushing because we should use the name that distributions use or use the common denominator, most of the distros use "Linux", even Debian who uses now "GNU/Linux" tag started by calling itself "Debian Linux", that's history, you can't change that. And take for example Macs they are not called Darwin/BSD/Macs or anything like that, they are simple called Macs and the system OS X and nobody from BSD bitches about that (or they might but nobody cares)... anyway let's restart this discussion after you convice Apple to change the name of their system to OS Mac/BSD/X... -- AdrianTM 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hahaha! Good argument, AdrianTM! XD Maybe it's time to realize that all the GNU/Linux-pages are included in the Linux pages. --212.247.27.48 (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
In 1992, Torvalds explained that he pronounces Linux as /ˈlɪnʊks/,[4] though other variations are common.

This line in the introducion could be confusing because Linus Torvalds has yet to be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.166.131 (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 Desktop Linux Survey
Do you think we can use some info from this survey? Or it's not reliable enough info? -- AdrianTM (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

One question
Who decided that Wikipedia shall call the operating system "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux"? --212.247.27.48 (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)--212.247.27.48 (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have completely lost confidence in Wikipedia now
Calling Linux an operating system is wrong. It can't be right. There are no valid arguments for it. This article is biased and incorrect. Don't read it. --212.247.27.48 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the above comment is serious or just trolling to wind people up. As has been mentioned many times before, when most people say the word Linux they are talking about an operating system that follows a particular design factor. An enycyclopaedia must reflect this definition, and identify any dispute over the technical meaning of terms. I deal with users every day who talk about 'the Internet' when they mean 'the World-Wide Web' but I'd get (rightly) punched in the face if started getting pedantic with them. Mrstonky (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be outrageous if we would call the World Wide Web "Internet" on Wikipedia. But you want that? --212.247.27.179 (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "Linux" is widely used to refer to two things: the Linux kernel itself, and the set of operating systems based on it. In dealing with software, Wikipedia frequently has a tension between a technical focus (which would lead one to emphasize the kernel) and a market focus (which would lead one to emphasize the products that are made with it). --FOo (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

My views on the "Criticisms of Linux" issue
A while ago, I was scolded by several of you for tagging Linux "NPOV" and giving common-sense criticisms of Linux. You said that if the criticisms aren't on the web, there are no valid criticisms.

Linux on the Internet is similar to the American academic freedom crisis. All opponents of Linux, just like opponents of liberalism and socialism in the colleges, are silenced, censored, and humiliated. Any criticism of Linux is either treated as (1) invalid or (2) Microsoft-funded.

I did once find a Web site listing scholarly criticisms of Linux and open-source (including from a security standpoint - the man made an interesting argument about amateur coders making their way in). Unfortunately, due to the Linux issue I mentioned above, it is as impossible to find this page as finding a needle in a haystack. Every page with the word "anti-Linux" or "criticisms of Linux" is a pro-Linux news article. This is due to the personal biases, operating platforms, and funding sources of most Web sites, including Wikipedia itself.

I myself use Linux often - it is occasionally "fun" and such things as System Rescue CD are effective in data recovery for my business. But I am mostly critical of it, both from an economic and technological point of view. Neither I nor any family member or friend of mine has or has ever had any relationship with Microsoft Corporation or any of its employees.

You are probably unhappy with this addition to the talk page. In fact, due to the "tyranny of the majority" (no pun intended) nature of Wikipedia, my opinions will likely be erased, censored, criticized, and generally treated like garbage.

Feel free to respond. -RedBlade7 (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm a Linux user, but I will agree that there are opponents to Linux and not all of them are Microsoft-funded or talking garbage :). I seem to recall seeing an article about Linux security at one point too, but can't remember taking much notice of it at the time.


 * Probably being pedantic here, but you say you have no relationship with Microsoft and you don't run Linux except for "fun". Do you run Windows as your desktop operating system? If so, that does effectively mean you are in a relationship with Microsoft (like I said, being pedantic) but I understand the point you are getting at (never met Microsoft, not being back-handed by them).


 * Anyway, I would be quite happy to see some valid discussion of the criticisms of Linux. As long as they are validly referenced to proper discussion articles (not just "Linux is rubbish, Windows is the best") then I'd have no problem with that. [Jam][talk] 09:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "my opinions will likely be erased, censored, criticized, and generally treated like garbage" -- you seem to ignore what Wikipedia is supposed to be, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of opinions of editors, it should contain referenced info from reliable sources. Yes, there is some wiggling room about what is considered "reliable source" but few people would consider Microsoft as a "reliable source" when it comes to Linux, also don't use blogs and forums as references (per WP policy). As for a section named "Criticism" see the discussion two sections above. -- AdrianTM 13:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This article says many many good things about Linux but it doesn't really say any bad things. Is it better in all respects than OS X and Windows XP?  206.248.135.223 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * AdrianTM points out a problem with your writing, RedBlade7, and that is that lashing out at others, making accusations of suppression and persecution, is not going to win you any friends. (The "academic freedom crisis", in particular, is just so much conservative sour grapes, but I won't get into that here.) I've read your previous comments on the issue, and frankly they sound remarkably like the entertainment industry's arguments against new technology such as audiotape, videotape, MP3 players, etc. The fact is that new business models do arise from time to time, and it appears your entire beef with open source software stems from the fact that it scuttled your chances of being a shareware author. (I'm not even sure what you mean by calling it "exploitation" -- consulting and support aren't legitimate ways of making money off of software?)
 * The fact is, if you're going to talk criticism of Linux, the development model should properly be covered under open source, with this article covering primarily historical and technical issues. On the technical front, the Torvalds-Tannenbaum debate is probably the major one, given the lack of any substantive proof of plagiarism from SCO vs. IBM and related cases. On the historical front, Linus is notoriously blunt and has rubbed a few people the wrong way (re: the BitKeeper incident). But attacking the development model is really outside the scope of the article. Haikupoet 07:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (The "academic freedom crisis", in particular, is just so much conservative sour grapes, but I won't get into that here.) That is a lie. When I was going to school, I called for FDA reform leading to eventual abolition of the agency in my senior thesis, and was censored, humiliated, embarrassed, and not even allowed to show my evidence that it worked. The same applied to me when I (back then) supported the war - humiliated, embarrassed, put on the spot. At one point, a professor yelled at me for criticizing socialized medicine (even using swear words!). I once had points taken off a test for using the phrase "excessive male influence" instead of "male domination." I don't care what your views are. But don't be intolerant of mine (isn't "tolerance" what liberalism is all about?).
 * As for Linux, you are doing the exact same thing. You are intolerant of any difference in opinion, even when the opinion is backed by evidence (unlike "Microsoft FUD," which is a mere conspiracy theory), and are practicing mass censorship, which is incredibly Orwellian, especially given Wikipedia's enormous influence and power over Internet users. -RedBlade7 23:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your sob story about the Academic freedom crisis has no place in Wikipedia either. One of the cardinal rules is no original research. The reason why it must be cited is so that it can be verified. Wiki is not your personal ideological sandbox, it's supposed to be an objective and neutral encyclopedia. If you can cite evidence of Linux critics being silenced, then by all means do so. Since Linux is an open source OS, I seriously doubt there is some cabal trying to silence it's critics. Linux's programmers are anyone on the interwebs who makes a contribution. There is no unified group of Linux coders and supporters.Sarcastic Avenger (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Without getting into the substance of your other arguments (as they aren't germane to Linux), it's often said that one must not be so open-minded that one's brain falls out. And your defensiveness and/or paranoia shows that you've given just about as much thought to these issues as it takes to apply them to yourself and your own personal interests, and no further. That doesn't make for a very solid footing for your arguments. Anyway, as a general rule I don't think the security argument really applies -- after all, in cryptography, it's generally assumed that any potential attackers know what you're up to, and the task is to secure the data in spite of that. Security through obscurity (e.g. hiding your security flaws behind a closed source license) can never be relied upon in any circumstances. Given how open sharing and collaboration has made modern science what it is, it seems highly unlikely that applying a collaborative model to the very similar field of software could possibly be a bad thing. Haikupoet 00:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, what's wrong with Linux?
 * many device vendors do not support it out-of-the-box
 * lack of games
 * lack of microsoft word
 * fragmented community, flame wars like you never done seen before, people arguing over GNU/Linux vs. Linux ad infinitum, etc. general lack of true leadership
 * one step behind other operating systems (all these apps that mimic what other OS'es provide)
 * generally crap video codec support (how many times has mplayer or xine or vlc started glitching on you? quicktime doesn't do that.)
 * lack of uptake in offices; it's difficult telling your manager that you want to use linux
 * all the baggage that goes along with open source, which some people don't like, e.g. MS FUD.
 * Most of these things are not Linux's "fault". That doesn't mean they don't affect usage of the operating system.  It also more generally means that Linux isn't the wonderful panacea that this article basically makes it out to be.  It can do everything, but the reality is that it doesn't.  There are articles and mailing list postings from notable people that talk about these things, but if you ignore the issue of course you won't find them.  206.248.135.223 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All these issues are fine to be mentioned in the article provided that 1. are well referenced (reliable sources) and 2. are introduced organically where they belong: devices in the "hardware" section, games and MS Word in "usability" and so on, not into a troll magnet named "criticism" (again, Linux is not an art piece to have a "Criticism and praises" section, it's also against the WP manual of style) -- AdrianTM 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for being open-minded. 206.248.135.223 03:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are wrong.
 * GNU is much easier to install than Windows. It is just that most Windows users have never installed their operating systems.
 * It's a feature not a bug if an operating system can't run Microsoft Office.
 * Flame wars aren't the business of operating systems
 * GNU reimplemented most features of Unix but it is the most innovative operating system. Also think of KDE. Other desktop enviroments copy from KDE.
 * You can use proprietary video codecs on GNU but then you don't have a free computer system.
 * What you find hard to tell your boss isn't a case this article should talk about.
 * I guess you mean the idea of free software with “the baggage that goes along with open source”. This is the key point. Elaborate on it. --mms 14:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 206.248.135.223 is not wrong, they just hold that view. From your writing, I feel that you are wrong for referring to "GNU" instead of "Linux". However, you are entitled to hold that view. Please don't bite people just because they hold a different view to you. [Jam][talk] 15:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * mms: I wasn't talking about installation issues but device drivers for video cards and all sorts of fancy hardware. Usually if they aren't supported it is because companies won't profit from it or because they don't want to divest trade secrets and then run into the binary blob issue with the kernel.  NVIDIA and ATI are changing in this respect but that wasn't the case for many years.  The comment about open source or free software or whatever you want to call it (see fragmented community point) was merely that many of the criticisms people have to make of Linux also just apply to open source in general.  However, Linux is the single most important example of an open source (free software) operating system so maybe some of those things should be addressed here.  As for flame wars not being the business of operating systems, unfortunately I've found that actually, flame wars and politics are XX% of what consume people's energies when working on operating systems, where XX is a fairly large number.  See your post above as an example.  I've said what I had to say so I'll leave you alone now.  If you want to find reliable sources supporting these points you will find them, but if you have an agenda to promote Linux as the best operating system out there then it is very easy to ignore them, or discount them for whatever reason.  Mailing list postings from Linus are acceptable as sources, they are practically taken as the word of God, and so a million dollar smear campaign funded by Microsoft should also be acceptable, as should articles by Dvorak or whoever it is that wants to complain about Linux.  206.248.135.223 17:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical criticism added which still applies to today. Suprising that it wasn't already in the article, or perhaps less so if it previously was and gradually whitewashed out. 07:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.205.144 (talk)