Talk:Linux/Archive 24

Don't undo my edits
My edits are true verifiable information, and i will continue to revert to them if you keep removing them. If you dont like it, TOUGH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.151.133 (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article is skewed toward linux and does not agnoledge
Other operating systems or competitors. It seems that the entire article talks about the root of linux and not what linux really is. It doesnt mention much if anything about Suse, or RedHat or any of the various linux companies that actually make linux what it is today: a usable operating system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpolster2005 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those issues are discussed in detail in the sub articles History of Linux and Linux distribution. This is a summary article due to the shear volume of information available on the subject.-Localzuk(talk) 07:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

compositing desktop image
After the compiz-fusion image was removed, I wonder if there should be an image again showing the capabilities of desktop effects. The image used might be too much vista in design, any recommendations here? 81.209.206.122 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Busybox and μC-Linux
Hiya all, I wondered why there is no mention of Busybox or μC-Linux despite the disambiguation saying "This article is about operating systems that use the Linux kernel." Would anyone know whether this omission is intentional? As otherwise we could write up a small section mentioning them. Okoura (talk) 06:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not intentional; the article has always been desktop-centric because more people have experience writing about desktop Linux. Feel free to expand its coverage of embedded systems. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is because this article is actually about GNU/Linux but has the wrong name. -- Borb (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

IceWM
Other GUIs include X window managers such as FVWM, Enlightenment and Window Maker. I am new on WikiPedia sorry if I make any mistakes. I just wanted to point out that I think IceWM should be included in this list as it is available as an alternative Window Manager in many of the major Linux distros.

Artengh (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not meant to be an exhaustive list. There are dozens of popular window managers, and keeping the list of alternatives at a maximum of three is the only way to prevent fans of the others from continually adding them on. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section
User Man with one red shoe has deleted the entire section on the GNU/Linux naming controversy in this article. I asked him on his talk page to get consensus here for this edit, but he has not done so yet, so I am asking: Does the naming controversy warrant mention in the article, or is the link in the lead section sufficient? — BradV 21:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see reason to remove that section. --Gronky (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So it's not just me then. I've restored it. — BradV 21:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all you didn't ask me to take this to talk page, you said this "wait until the discussion on the talk page has run its course", there was no discussion on talk page about this section, now that you opened the discussion you could have waited for me to give a reply... man with one red shoe (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a link to controversy in the lead section. I think any further discussion about the name should be in controversy article, otherwise it's simply a matter of WP:WEIGHT, we don't need to discuss too much about a issue like this one, that's why there's a separate article, to have the issue treated there, not to clutter this article with "controversies".... man with one red shoe (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this Talk page plus the controversy article establishes that it's worth a paragraph :) If we were to delete all sections from this article that have their own article, most of the article would be gone. --Gronky (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That would not be a bad idea, I think most of the stuff should be in Linux kernel and Linux distribution pages. The name is mentioned the controversy article is linked, why have a separate section about "controversy" how is that not WP:WEIGHT, since this article is about Linux not about controversies? -- man with one red shoe (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Noteworthiness: As Gronky mentions, given the amount of discussion above and elsewhere about what to call it, it seems the topic is pretty noteworthy.
 * Topicality: The naming "issue" is about Linux. How is that not relevant in an article also about Linux?  Why would it belong in the kernel or distribution page?  Edit: Oh, sorry, I misunderstood what you wrote. 18:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the issue is noteworthy and about Linux itself, I think there are a couple of reasonable options:
 * Per the Summary_style guideline, we could have a paragraph summarizing the issue here, with a link to the main article. This is how the article was, until it was removed.
 * Alternately, we could discuss it in a few sentences in the "Copyright and naming" section and have a "See also" link.
 * Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 02:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring with Linux kernel
This article and Linux kernel cover a lot of the same ground. The Linux kernel article is mostly a superset of this article, with the addition of some technical and versioning information.

I suspect it got this way because of the dual duty that "Linux" performs: "Linux"-as-a-kernel and "Linux"-as-an-operating-system. I'm aware of the distinction and the synecdoche... Given the content of this article, I think that sections 1-3 of Linux kernel mostly belong here. Thought I'd seek opinions before I do some refactoring.

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 18:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm a bit late on this. My opinion is that the History section of Linux kernel should focus on technical details, and the History section of this article should focus on social aspects, personalities, marketshare, mindshare, that sort of thing.  As of today it looks mostly okay, but the kernel article needs more detail!  Think of it like this... when someone non-technical is going to read about Linux for the very first time, what do you suppose they would find most interesting?  The size of the code-base?  Version numbers?  Of course not... that sort of thing is suitable for a sub-article.  As to sections 2 and 3 of the kernel article, I agree with you... they could probably be chopped out so that that article can focus on the technical details of the kernel itself, something Wikipedia still doesn't cover very well.  -/- Warren 17:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree re. technical details vs. personalities, marketshare, etc. Re-reading the history section of the kernel article I see you're right about it being pretty technical, so it makes sense to stay there.
 * I'll work on the other sections as I have time, which (of course) is in short supply. :)  I'd invite anyone else to take a stab at it.
 * Thanks for your thoughts. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 17:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

One possibility, it seems, would be to refactor this such that Linux is a disambiguation page pointing to Linux kernel and Linux operating system, the latter of which would also have redirect page GNU/Linux and would begin with: The Linux operating system or GNU/Linux is a computer operating system .... --FOo (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, that's a good solution to start with, later on we can have a discussion about placing a GNU/Linux link on the DP or not,it covers the main issue of duplicated content.Mion (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Undue weight to minority terms. I'd encourage users who haven't already done so to participate in the RfC if they feel that the main article should not remain at Linux. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the term GNU/Linux is a minority term whichever way you look at it, and policy/guidelines are quite clear on this issue.-Localzuk(talk) 13:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Underdog
Re:
 * As an operating system underdog, Linux aims for interoperability with other operating systems and established computing standards. - emphasis mine.

Is it because it's an underdog? I suspect it's because of the open source philosophy and practice - it's not controlled by a commercial entity with an interest in restricting compatibility. I suspect it should be removed for POV, but I'll leave it for someone who knows the subject. --Chriswaterguy talk 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ascribing "aims" to Linux is nonsense to begin with, and ascribing motives behind those aims is even more nonsense. (It's also pure WP:OR, or rather, someone casting their own personal anthropomorphism of Linux as fact.)


 * The Linux kernel project has a leader who can express goals, but the Linux system as a whole is anarchic and has no such thing. Sure, there are all sorts of compatibility projects out there that can in some sense be described as parts of "Linux" that aim at interoperability, such as Samba and Wine. But your average LAMP Web programmer, Postfix mail system admin, or embedded systems developer doesn't give a shit. --FOo (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Meh. I'd argue that the "Linux community", such as it exists, favours interoperability in the way described. However, the underdog characterisation came from a large edit set translated from the French version of this article and may not be appropriate. If the specific claim can't be sourced it should be reworded. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, you might argue such. But that would be an instance of original research. :) The "underdog" characterization is nonsense to begin with; in several relevant markets, Linux is the dominant player these days. --FOo (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'm happy for the characterisation to be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed it couple of days ago, sorry I didn't left a note here. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NewTux != official mascot
The glass looking Tux is not the official kernel mascot, we'd better use original Tux.svg 81.209.224.169 (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and what's going on with the beak in the "new" one? It looks flattened. --FOo (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Glossy tux is not an official Linux logo. It is drastically different from the official Tux used on kernel.org and created by Larry Ewing. I suggest it be changed. -- AM 0 88 (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The official logos are those on kernel.org and gnu.org. --212.247.27.19 (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Only Tux?
Initially, I want to say that this article is fascist since it calls the whole operating system "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux". Linux is nothing more than a kernel and it has its own article. However, since this article is about the operating system GNU/Linux, why is it only Tux up there? Why isn't a Gnu head there also? --212.247.27.19 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because we are a bunch of fascists, that's why. Way to try to contribute by offending editors of the article. Please read the archives to see why the article is called how it is called. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with that you are a bunch of fascists. However, why shall I read the archives which discusses the name? It was the logo that was bothering me. GNU's logo should also be there. This policy is just confusing like the policy of calling it "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux" which is the real name. --212.247.27.19 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is your only warning -- lobbing accusations at editors because you don't like the contents of an article is a very fast way to get blocked. If you can't present your thoughts respectfully, you aren't welcome here.  -/- Warren 17:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay then, you are not fascists. However, I still have a question which waits for answers. --212.247.27.19 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I think this is a good question. The above Rfc is probably draining the time of most editors, so I wouldn't be surprised if people didn't have the energy for this discussion right now, but I think you're right that there should be a GNU head up there. --Gronky (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally some sympathy! Thanks! If we are many enough who agrees, we should add it. What can stop us? --212.247.27.19 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, now should I add it? --212.247.27.19 (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never seen the GNU logo used to advertise or refer to the OS 'Linux'. Adding it would be adding undue weight per WP:NPOV.-Localzuk(talk) 19:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Localzuk! I've seen the GNU logo used to advertise or refer the the OS 'Linux'. It is at www.gnu.org. They do not call it 'Linux' but since we are obviously talking about the same OS, it is appropriate to add the gnu head. --212.247.27.19 (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * GNU.org is a self source on this subject and can't be used as evidence to support its usage with regards to the naming or iconography used to advertise Linux. Please provide third party evidence. The issue is that whereas some people call Linux, GNU/Linux, there are even fewer who use the GNU logo with the product, and therefore using it would be a fringe of of a minority - so wouldn't be acceptable under either undue weight rules or verifiability rules.-Localzuk(talk) 15:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You said that you hadn't seen the GNU logo used to advertise or refer to the OS. Well, now you have at gnu.org. --212.247.27.19 (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * sigh* Please don't engage in ridiculous arguments. I am pointing out that the logo is not used by anyone else *other than GNU* to advertise the OS. It is pretty obvious that GNU themselves will use their own logo, so any arguments saying that are plain redundant. We need third party usage-Localzuk(talk) 23:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Linux Day
If Linux had a day, which day would it be? What was the release day of the kernel 1.0?


 * 'fraid this isn't for us to decide, and Talk: pages are only really for discussing how to improve the article, so don't be surprised if this doesn't generate the discussion you're expecting :-/ --Gronky (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Spam
The User:87.196.224.160 is probably a kind of spammer. Look at his edits. He also added the same picture to other language variants (I have checked cs, de and fi). A screenshot added by him/her is not illustrative. Miraceti (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with those edits. Of course you may disagree that the picture is useful. --MarSch (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot
I will add a screenshot of ubuntu, since it is probably the most known Linux distribution and the most used, I think that would help people see more clearly what Linux is... discuss here. 87.196.141.213 (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, a GNOME-desktop. The GNU Network Object Model Environment. :-) --212.247.27.19 (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

linux's various OS's compatibility article
although i study IT, i don't have the good knowledge of these OS's. it's mainly because of the applications software available in the Internet are not at all compatible with them. if anyone knows better about this can you please start a related article about it? by the way, not just the application software, but also the games, the utility programs, drivers, multimedia program, audio/video codecs and more to make a more comprehensive article. share what you know from these OS's. thanks. Xmlv (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

linux belongs to which company
Could you please tellme linux belongs to which company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.70.42 (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean 'Linux' as in the subject of this article? Please read the article and it explains that Linux is not a single product, but a name widely used to describe a collection of operating systems that commonly use the Linux kernel. These individual operating systems (distributions) are owned by the companies/people that own them in so much as they own the trademarks for the name. However, much of the software in them is free and as such isn't owned by them. The trademark 'Linux' is owned by the original creator of the kernel, Linus Torvalds. It is licensed by the Linux Mark Institute. All of this is in the article and the article about the kernel. Thanks, -Localzuk(talk) 16:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, by "owned" I assume you mean who owns the copyright. Most free software is copyrighted by the people that wrote it. Everything that is licensed is owned by somebody. Most of GNU is copyright the free software foundation but other free software is copyrighted by thousands if people. So the answer is thousands of people and companies own the copyright to GNU/Linux. -- Borb (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This mythical association with a company (which I hear often from non-technical people) is one of the reasons to avoid ambiguity by attaching "Linux" to just the kernel itself. Freed42 (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Where did the Rfc go?
Is the "GNU/Linux" Rfc over? Where did the discussion go? I thought it was ongoing. --Gronky (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's in the archive, I didn't check, did you? The discussion was silent for days, nobody had anything else to add, but feel free to start to beat the dead horse again, I don't have many things to do these days, I could continue the discussion... -- man with one red shoe (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See the top of the page... "Discussion about Linux vs. GNU/Linux is ongoing on this sub-page. Please do not discuss the name on the current page." 76.10.155.195 (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't see that infobox among the other ignorable infoboxes.  ManWORS: yes, I had checked the archives. --Gronky (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Move Linus' Picture
Linus' Picture should be above Stalin's as Linus is the founder of the project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.0.40.10 (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you're trying to be funny by writing Stalin instead of Stallman... But anyway if you actually read that section then you would realise that the pictures are in chronological order. Stallman started GNU many years before Linus started Linux. -- Borb (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've placed them side-by-side now, with the aim of preventing any more bickering over this. If anyone else asks, they're in alphabetical order. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is RMS' picture bigger? OK, OK, I'm only joking... man with one red shoe (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. I'm glad that was brought up in jest. Suffice to say that it's a commons pic, so if someone feels an ALMIGHTY RAGE regarding the width then they can create a version which matches the aspect ratio used in Linus's and we can use that instead. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Linus is known as Linus. rms is known as rms. L comes before R, thus Linus is first if they are in alphabetical order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Claim about history of GNU project needs an adequate footnote
The early history that describes what was missing from the GNU OS has a footnote with inadequate support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#cite_note-gnu_history-5

The footnote just mentions a missing kernel, whereas the article claims much more was missing. Freed42 (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The footnote is somewhat less than objective. We need a better source for this; I'm sure there was a good quote from one of the early GNU kernel hackers regarding this, and there was a really good one I found once which sadly came from MetaFilter (and thus wasn't reliable). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)