Talk:Linux/Archive 30

Userland: "usually" versus "almost invariably"
This wording is a bit timid: "The full operating system usually comprises components such as utilities and libraries from the GNU Project (announced in 1983 by Richard Stallman), the X Window System, the GNOME and KDE desktop environments, and the Apache HTTP Server."

In practice Linux systems almost invariably comprise a Linux kernel coupled with a GNU userland. To my knowledge there are few exceptions such as experiments with the BSD userland on top of Linux. --TS 15:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Linux is found in lots of devices such as watches, routers, etc. As per WP:V You need to cite a ref for "almost invariably" - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you define a Linux system as being. In embedded systems it is almost invariably not the GNU userland that is included. And embedded Linux' are becoming more prolific than desktop Linux', from personal experience, almost everyone in my backyard has a Linux somewhere in their home (NAS, GPS, DVR,...), despite being rabit MS'ers ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If by "becoming more prolific" you mean "already vastly outnumber desktop installations". Every modern PVR or ADSL router, for instance. The problematic part of the sentence is not "usually", but "the full operating system". That would best be reworded to say "general-purpose Linux distributions" or the like. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, changed to "general-purpose Linux distributions". man with one red shoe 19:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've avoided the issue by rewording the relevant part entirely. The lede is still very lacking in its coverage of Linux's embedded market share, but sadly that's a failing of the article as a whole. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, really I had myself completely ignored the embedded systems that use the kernel with various non-GNU userlands. This does need to be incorporated into the article, though without unduly losing the focus on desktop and server linux, which do have a significant presence. --TS 14:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Contributors
referring to the excerpt:

"Analysis of Linux code—from December 2008 to January 2010—showed 75 percent of the code was developed by programmers working for corporations, leaving about 18 percent to the traditional, open source community.[44]"

i find that passage ambiguous and incorrect:

1) ambiguous: Does it say the analysis took place over that period? And does "Linux code" mean the all the code in a distribution?

2) this is incorrect: 75 percent of the code was developed by programmers working for corporations, leaving about 18 percent to the traditional, open source community

What Ref 44 http://apcmag.com/linux-now-75-corporate.htm says is:

"an analysis of the code contributed to the Linux kernel between December 24 2008 and January 10 2010. .... 75% of the code comes from people paid to do it"

Also, one of the first question one should ask one's self when reading any study is "who did the study", so the author ought to be given as well. One paraphrase would be

"Of new code contributed to the Linux kernel in 2009, an analysis by LWN.net founder Jonathan Corbet[44] found that 75% comes from people paid to do it, as opposed to true volunteer effort." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.150.159 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The claim is problematic to begin with, because it implies that there is a tension or contradiction between "programmers working for corporations" and "the traditional open source community". The assumption is that open source is "traditionally" an exclusively hobbyist or recreational endeavor, which is simply untrue. --FOo (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point, even though your quotes are of the wiki author ... one way to look at might be that corporations find "open source linux" so valuable that the donate some of their IT to it ... which would be a generalization of "volunteer" to include both the individual-as-volunteer and the corporation-as-volunteer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.155.21 (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

GUI based?
The opening sentence describes Linux as "a generic term referring to Unix-like graphical user interface (GUI) based computer operating systems based on the Linux kernel."  I don't see how calling Linux "GUI based" is in any way correct, as it can certainly run without a GUI. Some distributions do not include a GUI at all. There are plenty of "headless" servers that run with only command-line tools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.156.228.229 (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are quite right, it is at best imprecise - I will fix it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good call, I think people who started this page had only "Linux on the desktop as replacement of Windows" in mind but that's obvious not the only thing that Linux can do. man with one red shoe 14:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It has been my experience with "mature" articles on Wikipedia that very few editors who work on a specific article regularly will actually sit down and read the article from the beginning as a new reader would, hence a new set of eyes can pick up glaring errors that were once right or at least within the focus of the article, but now need fixing. it is one reason why new editors are always needed on Wikipedia, or at least why existing editors should pick an article outside their area of normal work and just read it to see if it makes sense. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

opinions and encyclopedic content
I removed this "In 1997, Linus Torvalds stated, “Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did." I was reverted and asked to discuss it here.

While this is not a big issue, I think we should not include such opinions here, we should state facts "Linux kernel uses GPL" not oblique opinions like "Linus thinks that GPL is great" (since this article is about Linux not about GPL or Linus opinions. Such opinion might be relevant in a GPL article, or if there would be a big controversy about using GPL or not for the kernel -- there isn't as far as I know). man with one red shoe 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The significance of this opinion is that releasing under the GPL was Linus Torvalds' decision as sole owner of the Kernel code up to that point. Had he not done so, things would have been different.  As he was the person instrumental in that pivotal decision, his opinion on the success of the decision is relevant to this article.


 * While the decision is not now regarded as controversial, at the time it was a break from previous practice. For instance MINIX, which Torvalds used as a base to design and test the kernel, was licensed by Andrew Tanenbaum on terms that were then considered rather liberal, because he charged only $69 US to commercial users.  As our article History of free and open-source software recounts, the GPL release of Linux in 1992 meant that, for the first time, software developers had a completely GPL operating system, comprising the GNU userland and the Linux kernel.  For the first time, every line of operating system code could be used, copied, and modified as the user saw fit under the terms of the GNU Public Licence. So this was an extraordinarily influential decision and it was made by a single man. --TS 22:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Tony is right, it is germane to the article subject, but perhaps the line needs a bit more explanation to place it is context? - Ahunt (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Torvalds does provide some context. I cannot connect to archive.org at the moment for some reason, but this appears to be a copy of the same interview--at least, it contains the same sentence attributed to Torvalds.  He says he originally went for a license whick forbade anybody else to make money from his software, in reaction to Tanenbaum's MINIX licence which he thought put the software out of reach of some people.  He later realised that some very legitimate commercial exploitation of Linux, such as disk-copying, in those days one of the best ways of distributing free (libre) software and one that is labor-intensive, would be forbidden under his original licence.


 * This source, which is cited at History of Linux, corroborates the way in which Torvalds' work fleshed out the userland created by the GNU project. Actually there is a GNU kernel project known as GNU HURD, which preceded the development of Linux, to create a GNU kernel, but after two decades the HURD kernel has never had an official release. So Linux came along at just the right time to be adopted as an official GNU kernel capable of meeting all the goals of the GNU project. --TS 23:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

External links redux
I am reopening a discussion about the external links for readers new to Linux, following the archived one at Talk:Linux/Archive_29. At that discussion, very little editor input was seen, and some hard questions about the links were not acted upon. I would not characterize the results of that discussion as a consensus.

Personally, I do not think Wikipedia is here to help newbies learn how to do anything. They can do this on their own! I think the Linux article in particular is here to tell the full story about Linux, without trying to gain adherents or train beginners.

In that light, I do not think external links that are non-notable, self-published and prescriptive are necessary. I do not see any reason to keep the links aimed at Linux newbies. I am removing the lot. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In accordance with WP:BRD you were bold and removed the links, you were reverted and asked to discuss to gain consensus but chose to revert again. Rather than let you carry on this edit war of yours I will ask instead that those who originally requested the inclusion of the links or supported their inclusion restate their case here again and let us see what the current consensus is. - Ahunt (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to note WP:ELBURDEN -- the burden of proof on the inclusion of external links (with the common sense exception of the official or semi-official links which aren't under dispute here) is specifically on those who want to include them -- by default they should be excluded. This is doubly the case when the links skirt on the edges of the WP:EL guidelines: ("Switching to Linux: One Non-Notable personal experience", "Tips and ideas for a successful business migration to Linux" - on a wiki, too); or blatantly violate them ("Why Linux is Better").  My contribution to the consensus: the relevant ELs for this article are the 8 which aren't under dispute. -- simxp (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations for spoiling the Linux article by removing the external links for newbies! Those links were for NEWBIES who don't understand Linux very well, not for computer experts to criticise or idiots who have nothing better to do than create edit wars and squabble like silly little children who can't get their own way!  Whichever person(s) decided to remove the links for newbies, I must remind you of this: the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to readers so they can LEARN the basics of a subject, not be bamboozled with technical information.  External links are exactly that - EXTERNAL from Wikipedia.  Wikipedia has no control over the content of any external website (the content of an external website can change at any time).


 * Please can somebody add more than one external link for NEWBIES to Linux, or is that impossible? I can't stand do-gooders who have to interfere with things that are working perfectly i.e. them external links for newbies, that have now vanished from the article.  It's times like this when I seriously wonder why I spend my spare time volunteering for Wikipedia when I could be doing other things! TurboForce (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay that is one person for removing them, one who let us know the criteria and two (including myself) who think they should be restored to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And another one against adding them. There are clear rules against adding links, most important being "Wikipedia is not a collection of links" that's clearly spelled in Wikipedia rules. man with one red shoe 02:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To me, it looked like smxp argued for making sure that the links are kept out. Which makes the !vote, for what its worth, three against links and two for. I wonder what it is about new Linux users that makes some editors here think they are so lost that they need Wikipedia's help in navigating the web. Me, I thought anybody considering Linux was already a cut above... Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While I wholeheartedly agree that "Wikipedia is not a collection of links", my reading of WP:EL tells me a reasonable number of external links in a separate section for a laudable purpose is perfectly acceptable. The Linux article is a high-quality document that is in no way diminished by the inclusion of a few links for Newbies.


 * Although there certainly is room for discussing the merits of including specific links—as simxp pointed out—removing the entire section, while certainly BOLD, was not in the best interest of the article and smacks of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


 * Perhaps it's wise to drop the "Why Linux is Better" link in the interest of WP:NPOV, but personally, I would like to see the group of Newbie links restored. -- UncleBubba (Talk) 05:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

!! Looks like we're back to square one. Back in January this year, I pointed out that the Linux page was not very "newbie" friendly. This was addressed in 2 ways: parts of the article were rewritten and external links were added for those without much Linux knowledge. Everything was fine until some person(s) had to stick their beak in and remove them. Why do you think people go on Wikipedia? Is it because they would like to get more information on a subject? Is it because they've heard of something and would like to know what it is - in this case Linux? I think most (if not all) people reading this paragraph will know that Linux is becoming more popular everyday and home users and gradually starting to see Linux become available to them e.g. on netbooks, which is why Linux is brand new to them and why they would like to know a little about Linux and would go on Wikipedia to learn what Linux actually is. You see my point: newbies will be reading the Linux page their needs should be catered for too. External links for users new to Linux should be put back and those that are deemed unsuitable will obviously not be allowed. Trying to get this message across is like trying to peel potatoes with a table knife! TurboForce (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Not trying to cause trouble here, TurboForce, but you do realize, don't you, that you could easily put the links back yourself? UncleBubba (Talk) 13:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Those of us with beaks to stick note that an encyclopedia article is for the reader to obtain neutral information, not for the writer to evangelize. Your confidence that Linux-curious readers must have some assistance is misplaced. I wonder if the newbie links include one that you have an interest in? Is there a conflict of interest? Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: UncleBubba - it's pointless me adding links for new Linux users when some people are nitpicking external links and taking them away because they are not "suitable". Here's one link which could be good for those curious about Linux: What is Linux? <- a page on the Ubuntu website.  No, I don't have any interest in any of the external links that were removed; these links were fine and done their job i.e. providing extra information to Linux newbies without being overly technical. TurboForce (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why link to a "What is linux" page when this article is here for exactly this purpose, to explain what is Linux? man with one red shoe 16:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Binksternet - There is no reason to suspect that someone is trying to promote their own website here, and lacking any evidence of that please assume good faith.


 * User:man with one red shoe - a good question! As discussed in the previous debate if the article was more complete and better written then I think everyone would agree that these links would not be required. It is the current inadequacies of the article, particularly for people new to the subject, that make links to further reading for beginners needed, according to some of those beginners themselves. One way forward would be some serious work on this article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Otherwise I think we need to review where we are here. The external links were originally included by consensus after some detailed debate. User:Binksternet then removed one of them with the edit summary delete link to essay by non-notable writer, which I reverted with the edit summary The inclusion of this link is by consensus at Talk:Linux/Archive_29#External_links. You will need to gain a new consensus at Talk:Linux to remove it. User:Binksternet then removed all the links with the edit summary Looks like whatever consensus was reached was quite brief. Deleting the whole newbie link collection. and started this thread here two weeks ago on 28 March 2010. My contention is that since these links were originally agreed upon by consensus that a new consensus is required to remove them. Clearly in the last two weeks of this discussion there is no clear consensus to remove them - I currently count three in favour of removing them and three in favour of keeping them, therefore the previous consensus to include them still stands and the links should be reinstated. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ELNO, external links should not be used in place of text that would normally be present if the article were to be improved to FA level. External links are not supposed to be the lazy way of adding content. Furthermore, WP:ELNO recommends against having a stand-alone list made up entirely of external links, which the newbie help list was. I do not see in this or the previous discussion the kind of overwhelming consensus required to overturn standard WP guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would argue that your interpretation of WP:ELNO is overly narrow and I contend that these links meet the requirements of WP:ELYES. We still need a consensus to overrule the previous consensus and remove these links and that consensus has not been demonstrated here. Let's wait a few days and see if any other opinions are proffered. - Ahunt (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When I looked at WP:ELNO, I counted 20 items in that one section. Please, Binksternet, be more specific about which items you are citing as justification for your actions (removing the entire link section). External links play an important role in Wikipedia and the Internet as a whole: allowing reference to copyrighted material without including it, for example. To me it is preferable to reference a few sites rather than copying (or rewriting them) into the article.


 * BTW, I don't give a good goddamn which links are included; with the exception of DistroWatch (to which I have absolutely no connection), they were unfamiliar to me. I DO, however, care a great deal when my integrity and honesty are publicly questioned without good cause. Please, let's not drop into ad hominem mode here. UncleBubba (Talk) 21:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep your pants on, UncleBubba, nobody's integrity is being questioned. I intended to ask TurboForce and Ahunt and, well, everybody here if any of them have a horse in this race, and if their answers were negative I was going to let the issue rest. I am not failing to assume good faith.
 * I would not want you to read all 20 of those guidelines if you wished not to, oh no, in that case I would only have you look at numbers 1 and 20. Heaven forbid the whole list might be familiar to an editor here... ^_^
 * Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the sarcasm really helpful to the discussion? My point, Binksternet, is that WP:EL has several parts. Section 2 contains absolute prohibitions, while Section 4, "Links normally to be avoided", is not nearly so concrete. Since it seemed unlikely the Newbie Links ran afoul of all 20 items, my request was reasonable (and would have been unnecessary if you had cited the information from the outset).


 * If we can reach a consensus on a reasonably small number of Newbie Links, the deleted section can be restored or the links can be added to the External Links section. Heck, I'll put 'em in if nobody else wants to.


 * Earlier, you made a statement, "I do not think Wikipedia is here to help newbies learn how to do anything". Actually, that is one of the main reasons for Wikipedia's existence. Perhaps you know everything. If so, congratulations! I know that I, however do not, so I try to learn something new every day. When I'm playing the role of Newbie, I usually come here first; when I already know something, though, I rarely visit. Let's try to keep to the design goals of the site, i.e. a learning tool for all (see WP:NEWBIES). UncleBubba (Talk) 23:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline WP:NEWBIES tells us nothing at all about readers who are Linux-curious. What that is is a guideline for being nice to new editors, not readers. About what kind of readers come here to check out our Linux page, it could be anybody, including Linux experts wishing to see if a new tweak is mentioned, or Linux newbies wishing to get an idea of what it's about, or Linux haters looking for new ammo. If the noobz are told, accurately, what Linux is about, they can make an intelligent decision. Beyond giving them the clearest possible picture in the article, we have no mission to try and reel them in to be Linux users. This is not Torvaldpedia; it is neutral territory. I feel confident that all the Linux-curious readers are going to be savvy enough to be able to search the web and find how-to advice. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well all this arguing back and forth is very interesting, but it is pretty clear that we don't have a new consensus to reverse the previous consensus and remove the links. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've stated that argument several times, but I did not address it up to now because I did not think it valid. With the inclusion of material requiring consensus, rather than the exclusion, I think each new discussion starts at zero, with nothing assumed. This is not a manual of style page where at least one version of the way to deal with quotation marks, for instance, must remain in the guideline, and discussions on the MOS talk page gather consensus for which version. It is an article describing a subject about which it is possible to leave out proposed material and still have a perfectly comprehensible work. Lack of consensus here reverts to no stand-alone list of newbie links in the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree - you need a new consensus to overturn an existing consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:ELBURDEN says that the external link is out if no consensus can be reached about it. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Except that you just proved my point - we have an existing consensus to include these links and no consensus to remove them. - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as an "existing consensus" once new consensus discussions begin. Consensus can change, and in this instance, whatever consensus had been achieved has been lost. Current conditions are that there is no consensus for inclusion. The stand-alone external links for newbies are not to be returned to the article until discussion achieves a new consensus for their inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup you are quite right, consensus can change. As that page says "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable." So a new consensus here will definitely overrule an older consensus. I am just not seeing an new consensus here. A lack of consensus now certainly does not overrule an earlier consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This is bull. You never had consensus before either, you sneaked them in and ignored opposition, I was against including the links and some other people too, just the fact that I didn't remove them and let other people act doesn't mean that "we had consensus". This manipulation of facts makes me mad. Let's cut to the chase, you don't have consensus to keep the links, it's against Wikipedia rules and manual of style, why do we waste our time debating what was the consensus before? man with one red shoe 16:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been editing on Wikipedia for five years now and I work on a wide variety of topic areas, mostly aviation and history. In all other subject areas debates are almost always civil and lead to solutions because we are dealing with reasonable people. Software articles, and especially free software articles, are a very different story however and are often, as in this debate, characterized by pointed incivility, sarcasm, personal attacks and bullying. It is no wonder that articles like this one patently do not meet the needs of readers new to the subject, as few people are willing to work on them in this in this environment and improve them. You will note that there are 980 people watching this page, but debates like this attract barely six of them to participate. Why is that? I think it is pretty obvious between User:Binksternet's baseless accusations of conflicts of interests to User:man with one red shoe's uncivil attack and inaccurate characterizations of previous debates, that no one is willing to put up with these sorts of childish outbursts and generally uncivil behavior. If you check the article history you will see that my role in this article has been predominantly dealing with some of the amazingly high level of vandalism that the article attracts. Since I am not willing to put up with this level of uncivil behavior perhaps someone else can take that task on. - Ahunt (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen your excellent work in aviation (we are both members of related wikiprojects) and I respect your work at Wikipedia immensely. I asked one time if there was a conflict of interest; I did not accuse anybody, or try and drive the point. My sarcasm was, I think you can see, an attempt to break up the tone with levity. In this discussion I have made my points, and you have made yours, so perhaps it is time to step up to another level with an RfC or something. In full collegiality, Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure people know that any Wikipedia article is read by someone who either doesn't know anything about the subject (in this case Linux), are an expert at the subject or somewhere in between. Basically, a good Wikipedia article is one that: isn't too long, caters for all readers and provides external links which explain things in more depth, to avoid the article becoming too long and boring.  I don't have time for any more of this nonsense, so I will leave you all to it.  There is another Wikipedia article that desperately needs a re-write and I'm going to help on that one the best I can.  I don't appreciate the way volunteers are treated on here, especially ones who spend many hours' hard work and research making this site better (it makes me tired sometimes that I have to press ctrl and A to highlight the text, if only the background wasn't white!!!!!  I'm happy to volunteer and I would appreciate it if people worked together instead of constantly arguing). TurboForce (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ahunt and TurboForce; the tone adopted by some participants in this discussion seems to range from uncivil to downright hostile and is not conducive to collaboration.

For example, the statement, "I do not see any reason to keep the links aimed at Linux newbies. I am removing the lot." seems very presumptuous. When I first read it, I thought, "Gee, who died and left you in charge?" When I read "The stand-alone external links for newbies are not to be returned to the article..." (emphasis added), I wanted to immediately re-insert the links, which isn't going to do anyone any good.

Building consensus requires cooperation, which is rarely achieved by whacking someone on the head. There is a big difference between saying "I think we should do this" and announcing "This is the way it will be done." While the latter might work in some situations, sooner or later someone will come along that won't acquiesce and then the fighting will start. As a matter of policy, nobody owns this article (see WP:OWN), so no one should be acting as though they do. Everyone's opinion is exactly that: an opinion, and one of them is no more valuable than any other.

The guideline that "External links are not supposed to be the lazy way of adding content." is simply that--a guideline. Many--if not most--Wikipedia articles contain an External Links section to point the reader to additional information that, for whatever reason, is not included.

I guess the real question is: Given that nobody is likely to get everything they want, can we reach a compromise that the interested parties can live with?

I hope so. UncleBubba (Talk) 21:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Many--if not most--Wikipedia articles contain an External Links section" looks like WP:OTHERCRAP type of argument to me. man with one red shoe 22:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but WP:OTHERCRAP is discussing articles, not parts of articles. Nevertheless, if an article must have an "External Links" section to avoid violating WP:EL Section 2, so be it. Remember, if external links were prohibited, WP:EL would say so--and would be a helluva lot shorter.


 * To answer your earlier question, the reason we're debating this is that some of us are not willing to accede to your argument that your opinion regarding interpretation of WP guidelines is sacrosanct. UncleBubba (Talk) 23:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)