Talk:Linux/Archive 33

"Linux" - "Linux distribution" merger discussion
link to merger discussion. Please discuss there. man with one red shoe 18:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This introduction is all wrong
The introductory sentence is far too advanced and even self-referential. Consider it:

"Linux [...] refers to the family of Unix-like computer operating systems using the Linux kernel."

Terms like "Unix-like" and "operating systems" seem to be too advanced. Do we think that the typical user knows what "Unix" and "operating systems" means but does not know what "Linux" is? Finally, the "Linux kernel" concept is a bit self-referential, though technically accurate. The introduction should give the common reader a good idea of the topic, not force them to delve deeper in Wikipedia just to understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckabout (talk • contribs) 22:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be worth explaining, but we need to be as precise as possible.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestions on a more accessible rewrite would be welcome. It is indeed rather jargon-packed, but nobody has yet come up with a wording when adequately conveys the subject matter of the article without being either quite technical or impossibly vague. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just as a note, Simple Wikipedia has "Linux or GNU/Linux is a free and open source software operating system for computers." Unless you include mobile devices and other non-computers in the "computer" category, it isn't technically correct, but it might be a good jumping off point.

"Linux is a free and open source software operating system. It is part of the family of Unix-like computer operating systems using the Linux kernel."


 * Not saying it's perfect, but just a suggestion (I'm not attached to that exact wording by any means). - SudoGhost 14:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How about the following? I've split the original lead paragraph in two:

"Linux (commonly, also    ) is a computer operating system which is based on free and open source software. Although many different varieties of Linux exist, all are Unix-like and based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel created in 1992 by Linus Torvalds."

"Linux can be installed on a wide variety of computer hardware, ranging from mobile phones, tablet computers, routers and video game consoles, to desktop computers, mainframes and supercomputers. Linux is a leading server operating system, and runs the 10 fastest supercomputers in the world."

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is simple and to the point, and the next sentence elaborates on the first, giving a more detailed explanation. Looks good to me.  - SudoGhost 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely a lot clearer than the current intro. strcat (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Much clear. I have my problems with the claim that it's "a" computer OS, but given the choices, I prefer this variant. man with one red shoe 21:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree this is much clearer now, please do it. --hroest 06:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While dealing with the children on the article, I went ahead and changed the lede. Feel free to double-check and make sure I didn't leave anything out, I basically replaced the original first paragraph with what's above. - SudoGhost 07:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me. Thanks folks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There are elaborate schemes and skinning, as well as functional APIs to make Linux, windows like, as well as run Windows software. Its not only UNIX-like, as there are also distributions that do a lot of various things.
 * I would say Linux is a family of UNIX Variant open source operating systems, based upon the Linux Kernel, and GNU development tools. Have some WINE... Some WINE... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.39.145.54 (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What does WINE have to do with the lede? Not all operating systems that use Linux use GNU tools, and the fact that WINE is a program for Linux has nothing to do with the lede, nor does it make any of the lede as written untrue. - SudoGhost 20:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it "the media" or "much of the media"
I disagree with this change by Lentower and have reverted it tried to revert it, but it looks like SudoGhost beat me to it, for the same reasons I had. Here are the before and after versions, showing Lentower's change:

Before: The media and common usage, however, refers to this family of operating systems simply as Linux ... After:  Much of the media and many users, refers to this family of operating systems simply as Linux ...

This isn't even close. A Google news search for "linux -gnu" turns up about 6,380 results; "linux +gnu" turns up about 293 results. Basically, nobody in the media calls it anything but Linux. As a long-time employee of FSF, much of that as a speaker on their behalf, Mr. Tower clearly has a conflict of interest; I think that's getting in the way accepting that consensus on WP does not agree with the position taken by FSF. He should step back from trying to edit this article to fit the FSF agenda. Msnicki (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Good article
This article is currently very good. Congratulations for its development. --hdante (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 1.23.227.212, 30 September 2011
its 1991 not 1992

1.23.227.212 (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. I've cited Torvalds's October 5, 1991 newsgroup announcement.  Msnicki (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lojska, 30 September 2011
Please change "AutoDesk Maya" to "Autodesk Maya".

Reliable source: "Autodesk" is a registered trademark. I am an Autodesk employee and develop learning material for various Autodesk products including the Autodesk Maya product."

Lojska (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Msnicki (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed name change
GNU/Linux is a way better name, since it deals with both kernel and userland fairly. Naming the whole OS after the kernel is incorrect. The true correct name is GNU/Linux, only, and Stallman is right about it. The GNU project has a right for their abbreviation to be included into the name. We should not and we do not care how the name is usually used in speech, here we must care only about correct names, even if no one uses them. No compromises could be made. 46.73.23.209 (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I second this. The operating system is GNU/Linux; Linux is a monolithic kernel.  I vote either for a name change, or preferably, a complete reorganization of the material (note monolithic above).--John Bessa (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose From the top link (summary of archives): "Can we rename this page to GNU/Linux? No, the vast majority of people and companies call it Linux, and we already mention the alternate name in the lead and its own subsection." If you have new arguments bring them forth, otherwise is useless to recycle arguments that were made over and over on archives and didn't convince the majority. man with one red shoe 21:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose This has been discussed at length. Both consensus and common usage are in favor of Linux.  The references overwhelmingly call it Linux, and to call it otherwise is against Wikipedia's NPOV.  No authority exists to officially name operating systems using some GNU code, we can only reflect with the references show.  The references, vendors, media, and public usage overwhelmingly supports Linux over GNU/Linux.  To rename the article to GNU/Linux is to give undue weight to a minority opinion.  - SudoGhost&trade; 21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * the name GNU/Linux is not an opinion, it is the exact definition. calling it Linux is like calling a computer "graphics card" or "hard drive". regardless of my opinion on the name, the reason for choosing one just because everyone uses it, is just horrible. if a lot of people and the media would call the sky, "s84wvnct9e84znf2" would you change that too? and why is the opinion of someone such an important factor (not only here, but on the wikipedia in general), if correctness and/or facts clearly support one side? Stultitiam debello (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * GNU/Linux is the "exact definition" according to only one group of people. Naming the article GNU/Linux would be a violation of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT. Especially as there is no body set forth the determine the "correct" name of Linux, there cannot possibly be a "this is right, this is wrong" answer.  We can only go by what we have available.  There are many articles that state things I disagree with, but one must take care to avoid a conflict of interest, where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. - SudoGhost&trade; 09:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * GNU/Linux is the way Richard Stallman portrays it, but since I was around using GNU when Linux was developed, I personally prefer Linux/GNU. Only the FSF and the GNU people use it. The open source people say Linux, as well as Linus, and of course the marketers all prefer to ignore the contribution of the GNU project, whereas Richard Stallman, prefers it in chronological order. I prefer it in functional order, like a specification. GNU/Linux IS an opinion, and its the FSF and Richard Stallman's opinion.


 * The main supporting user space system tools? Oh, sorry, only a small part of the Kernel, according to maintainers is written in Assembly/Machine code, where as the bulk of the OS is written to compile in GCC. So, actually, GCC is a system level development tool, as well as a user space development tool. ( and a Kernel development tool also ). Can you please define user space? like in wikispace user space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.39.145.54 (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * thank you for your answer. i never looked at it that way.Stultitiam debello (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Linux can also be compiled with Clang and maybe other compilers. It's coded in 'GNU C' but other compilers support those same extensions. strcat (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are you? and what do you mean 'I was around.?". I agree with the term UNIX-Variant, since that was the way that UNIXs were classified ( With the important exception of Pyrmid systems, which were almost universally agreed as hacks ), decades ago. Linux's are classified by distributions. UNIX has a implied distinction of portability, where as Mac OS X is not portable. Kernel hackers traditionally programmed in assembly, and had a development domain of their own, GCC Changed that with the ability to assemble code. so that Kernel hackers and system developers as well as application developers could all use the same tools. User land was the domain of application users, like Web developers. So someone who developed GUIs was using system development tools, while the GUI users were user land users. its a subtle distinction. I would say this incorporating both distinctions...


 * "'Linux is both a kernel and a set of operating systems distributions derived from Minix, designed to be Unix-like and use open source development tools from the GNU project." [ Note: can someone update the graphic to show Linus's original intent? You have read his post no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.88.72.23 (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Attempts to paste "GNU" onto the name "Linux" represent an agenda by a minority to assert Richard Stallman's personal sense of ownership of this technology and they completely fail WP:NPOV.  The issue has been talked to death already and there's no evidence that anything has changed.  Msnicki (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So what if they are a minority? It is ridiculous to suggest Stallman wants to claim ownership over any software - do you know who the man is? GNU was the official name before it was even completed and was changed to "GNU/Linux" out of respect to Linus. The GNU should not be dropped. It is also worth noting that people often confuse the OS for the kernel and this manifests itself into incorrect wiki entries. Just earlier I had to correct an article for the (terrible) film Swordfish which outright stated that Linus 'created the Linux operating system.'. MeatyDoughnut (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure of where you got this information, because it conflicts with what is in the sources. According to the FSF (and of course rms), GNU is an operating system using HURD as the kernel. The FSF defines GNU/Linux as an operating system using the Linux kernel and the GNU userland/toolchain (gcc, glibc, gettext, the command-line utilities, etc.).


 * This article is about operating systems using the Linux kernel and any userland. For example, embedded distributions like μClinux and the distributions based on it which use uClibc and BusyBox, not glibc and the GNU coreutils. Android (operating system) does not use any GNU components/libraries (it uses the Bionic C library and a completely different userland). Richard Stallman and the FSF acknowledge that most people and almost all of the media use the "Linux" naming and they definitely do not want us to incorrectly refer to systems like Android as GNU/Linux. Please read the FSF FAQ on GNU/Linux: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html. The OS was originally referred to as "Linux" with GNU/Linux or terms like Linux/GNU/X being used later to give credit to more of those who were involved. In a way, Linus did create "Linux" because he put together the first "Linux distribution" by porting the GNU userland to work with his kernel. He obviously didn't code most of the original operating system (gcc and glibc were far larger than the kernel back then, but the proliferation of drivers has changed that) and no one here is claiming that (in fact, he's now coded less than 1% of the kernel itself).


 * This article exists because almost all of the media and other sources use the terms "Linux" and "Linux distribution" this way. I think the naming is quite stupid and the OSes should be referred to simply as "Arch", "Ubuntu", etc. (like the BSDs), but that is my POV, and almost all the of the sources use this naming (see Article titles for the policy).
 * strcat (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not saying the operating system that is known as 'GNU' does not use Linux as it's kernel. That is a separate thing.


 * When the project to write a free OS was started the name was already agreed upon (GNU). Therefore any contribution to this project would be a contribution to the GNU operating system. When Linus Torvalds contributed Linux, he contributed it to the GNU operating system. To give credit for supplying an essential part of the OS the name of 'GNU' was changed to 'GNU/Linux'. Another reason for the change is that Linux was not supposed to be the GNU kernel so it would be best to make a distinction between the two.


 * I am aware that people referred to the OS as 'Linux' but this was not an official name and they were wrong to do so. The error continues today. It was wrong then and it is still wrong today.


 * My main problem with this article is that is specifically refers to Linux as an operating when it is not. Linux is a kernel and there is no such thing as an operating system that is a distribution of 'Linux'. This is simply wrong and should be changed. MeatyDoughnut (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing the terms operating system and distribution. The operating system is only whatever runs in kernel mode, essentially, the kernel itself + the device drivers.  Everything else running in user mode is not part of the operating system but would be part of a distribution.  A distribution is the operating system plus any toolchain and all the applications.  Virtually (entirely?) all of the GNU code is application code.  It's often part of a distribution but it's not part of the operating system.  Yes, Stallman did envision a whole OS distribution, which he called GNU.  But he never got around to creating the OS part because Torvalds beat him to it and called it Linux.  Msnicki (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Msnicki, although we agree on the article naming, an unsubstantiated personal attack on someone admired by the people you are debating with is not going to them see things from your point of view. strcat (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that my comments are either unsubstantiated or that they constitute a personal attack. It's a known fact that Stallman is an activist who came up with the name GNU and started FSF.  He has made himself a public figure.  It's also a known fact that Stallman and FSF wish everyone would refer to Linux as GNU/Linux.  I submit that's an ownership claim of sorts:  It's a claim that FSF and GNU should share recognition, that any time we talk about Linux, we should be sure to give GNU credit.  And that's just silly.  I give them credit for their toolchain and applications.  But they did not create the Linux OS.  Stallman had plans to create an OS but Torvalds beat him to it.  Msnicki (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. 'GNU/Linux' may be the correct term for a subset of Linux-based OSes, but it is not accurate for all of them. The article has significant coverage of Linux-based operating systems that don't make use of the GNU toolchain/userland/libc such as Android, WebOS and other embedded Linux variants. strcat (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per strcat, and per Talk:Linux/Name. It should be noted that Linux and GNU and GNU/Linux are different things. GNU/Linux is GNU built upon Linux, in the same way it is built upon other kernels as well. The current article reflects this to some extent, but the general situation on Wikipedia is to make no clear distinction between kernels, operating systems and graphical user interfaces, which is a pity. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 14:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Hear me out, it going to take your time but listen (sorry about layout, don't know how to set it other than in one line). Monolithic kernel == operating system. . Just forget about brands (GNU and Linux) and marketing (GNU/Linux, Windows etc) and think about technology and how it has been developed since 1960's when first operating systems were developed and for what purpose the operating system has for computer and so worth to the user. Every program, needs a operating system. Every library, needs a operating system. GNU does not offer anything else than programs and libraries and all of them needs a operating system to operate them. GNU/Linux is in conflict itself technically. It is nice propaganda what has gained lots of popularity among users has people want to believe that GNU project has done so much more that it needs recognition. People can talk about cars and cars engines without such feelings. They can separate the engine from the car itself and understands the engines purpose to exist. People even understands that they can change the car engine to another one, still having same car with different engine. Do you guess where the saying "Linux allows you to pop-up the hood and look what its made of?" means? It does not mean that you can open a command line or you can see a web browser or bash source code. It means that you can download whole operating system source code from kernel.org and check how it works and you can even switch parts or "fix it". Just like car engine you can fix. The operating system is like car engine. It does nothing alone than just runs. You do not get electricity from it without using a other motor with it. Alone car engine just generates from gasoline/diesel a physical motion what can be used with other technologies like gears to generate different kind things. Even a wheel is very important thing for a car, as without wheels, car does not move. But everyone can see that wheels do not belong to the car engine. Even a brakes has very important feature that they allows car to stop. But everyone can see brakes do not belong to wheels or engine. Software system is like a car. It is full of different technologies, different products (car stereo from one company and USB phone charger from someone else). Together they all build a product what can be sold. Some parts are not needed for the car (to transfer people and goods) but they are more like a luxuries (like car stereo) in it. Some parts belongs to the car (brakes, wheels, engine etc) but still them being totally different technologies. We can not touch software. We can not understand it so easily as we can understand car engine and wheels. But even then, if we start studying the computer technology, we can find out what does what. Most IT amateurs and professionals knows what CPU is and what it does. Many does not know difference between CPU Socket and CPU. Or CPU and CPU heatsink, but they can understand it when they see it in their hands. With software, thing is totally different. As we can not see anything when computer runs. We don't have fans or any physical object doing something. We have only a visual presentation on the screen. And we believe what we see (Saying, seeing is believing). When a marketing person shows us a computer and on the screen there is image of nice wallpaper and few windows and icons on desktop, all in good looking way. And marketing person says "This computer comes with Windows operating system", we think that what we see on the screen, is the Windows operating system. At that point, we have been fooled. Everything what we saw, ain't even close what the operating system is. What we saw, was bunch of applications, picture, graphical icons and a software what draws all that to the screen. The operating system is always behind everything. It does not have a user interface, it does not play music or play videos. All what it does, is that it operates the hardware, takes input and sends output and manages every process and allocates hardware resources when and how needed. It does not care what process does, it just does what the process asks and makes sure does that process have permissions to do so. Operating system is responsible to get everything in computer to work. When computer with Linux starts, first thing what happens is the hardware starts, the computer firmware (BIOS/UEFI) gets loaded and does basic checks, then it search as set, the bootloader. The bootloader then does what it has been configured, search a operating system image, loads it, executes it and operating system takes control of everything. It does self check, checks hardware and then starts first process, INIT. And then INIT starts reading its configurations and gives orders to Linux to start the programs. At the end, user sees on the screen a login screen or a desktop and clicks few icons and reads text on webpage... thinking using a operating system. But not knowing operating system has never been available to be used directly. The operating system is managing and operating all the hardware and software in the computer. Every process, every bit, every disk head, memory block is under control of operating system. And GNU has NOTHING to do with the Linux operating system. There is no single GNU program or software what belongs to Linux operating system. Bash, GCC, Glibc and all other GNU softwares are just programs and libraries what all needs operating system. Not even bootloader is part of the OS. Bootloader is like starting motor in car engine. Its only purpose is to load and start the operating system. Just like starting motor only job is to start the gasoline engine. GNU project has own operating system called HURD. HURD ain't kernel. RMS wants you to believe that HURD is kernel as Linux is. But HURD is full operating system. HURD is Server-Client architecture operating system, not Monolithic. HURD has a microkernel called Mach. HURD is operating system what is set of microkernel and servers. That group is the HURD. And that is the reason why HURD has name of it. It is a bunch of OS servers controlled by Mach microkernel. And monolithic and server-client operating systems operate totally different. And one mistake what most people do as they don't know, is that they mix kernel and microkernel as same thing. And people do not even care what microkernel means than it would be just "smaller kernel" and not "huge and big as monolithic". As people do not know the history of operating systems and the history of naming. As before term "operating system" existed, the terms "kernel", "core", "master program", "controller" etc, were used and "Kernel" was most used. But that was on the time when only a monolithic architecture existed. Then kernels grow bigger and they came more complex to maintain and develop as hardware technology evolved that we had more RAM and more disk space to be allocated. Kernels were not just tens of thousands lines of code but hundreds or even million. The stability suffered as more lines meant more errors and single error crash the whole kernel and every program what it operated. Then someone got idea, "we slice the kernel to multiple parts and isolate the parts from each other so if one crash, others continue". Every "part" had different tasks of the kernel. One part was responsible for filesystems, other responsible to network protocols (TCP/IP, UDP and other low level networking, not HTTP etc high level protocols what all use low level protocols) and some responsible for printer and some for floppy disk and so on. Every different function of the kernel was separated as own "part". The Server-Client architecture was born. But the problem was that term "kernel" did not anymore fit as one of the "parts" in Server-Client architecture was responsible to operate all other "parts". Just like on kernel, the code what was responsible to operate all other functions, it was located in that "part". And it got term "microkernel". It was like kernel is were programs, but only for those "parts", its size was just few hundred or few thousand line of code. It was most important "part" of them all. Then there was a need for a new term what engineers could use when talking from kernel and this bunch of "parts". And the term "operating system" was token in use. As after all, monolithic and server-client architectures were complex systems what operated the hardware and software. It fitted to both architectures by their purpose. Then later, people started to talk microkernels as kernels because laziness and talking about "kernel is most important part of the operating system" came common because all new operating systems were Server-Client by architecture, not monolithics. Almost every operating system engineer tough that Monolithic architecture will die. Unix was dying, Apple and Microsoft was conquering desktops and servers. And then one 21 year old kid from Finland wrote own program for different purpose what later became operating system, and then he went and wrote the famous post to Minix newsgroup that he has a own operating system what is free (with his own license) and works only with i386. Soon Linus got to newsgroup fight with famous OS engineer Andrew Tannenbaum who wrote how monolithic architecture to operating system is obsolete and Server-Client architecture is the future. Both stand behind their opinions. After few years Linux birth it had won most of the GNU project OS engineers. RMS got angry about that because GNU project own operating system HURD lost its development speed because Linux. So RMS started a personal quest to keep GNU project a live because he was afraid that GNU would die. Linus used GCC to compile Linux, Linus ported the glibc to work on Linux so most of the GNU programs worked. It was imago fight for RMS. So after few years when Linux was started, he started to demand it will be called as GNU/Linux. The fight shared camps and went even so far that silently some GNU fans changed uname program listings against Unix standards and even added a -o option there, they renamed "operating system" to "kernel" and the new -o option was renamed as "operating system". All standard uname programs prints operating system name while GNU version of uname prints "kernel" and when using a -o option, it prints "GNU/Linux". GNU project went so far, that they fabricated the Unix standards. They started to talk about HURD being a kernel (kernel means operating system) but in the meaning of kernel as a microkernel, they do not talk about Mach microkernel what is used in HURD. They demand that every operating system is named with GNU/ prefix if it is compiled with GCC or rans any GNU project software like GCC, GlibC, Bash and so on. The whole GNU/Linux vs Linux is fight about faith. It is like Christians at years 1099-1271 against everyone. There is no technical or any scientific reason why GNU/Linux would be correct. Contrary, technology, computer science and even history proofs totally otherwise that Linux kernel is the operating system alone. Just forget the marketing, forget the opinions. Study the computer history, study the computer science how computer actually works. Start with questions "what I need to get gcc working" or "what I need to get data stored to HDD". Questions like what purposes every software has are important as well. Like what purpose is with glibc to C# or Java programs or when user plugs USB device to USB-port, what technically really happens. What is program? What is command? How many does know that when person types to bash (or any other shell) a "ls -la | grep foobar" those ain't commands but programs with options? ls is program as is grep. Those are two programs and not commands. Bash does have own commands, what are not programs, but they need to be known separately what they are. User can even check where programs are locaed with whereis program. like typing "whereis ls" or "whereis alias". You see, alias ain't program but it is bash command and feature. . Every computer user is victim of marketing propaganda. Came it from GNU or came it from Microsoft or Apple or any Linux distributor. They all want to sell their own product. They need to separate from the mass. The fight is going on graphical and application level, but they talk about operating systems and security, while they don't reality even talk about that. There never was a GNU/Linux operating system and there never is going to be a GNU/Linux. And do not veto to public opinion. As 99% of the public does not understand the computers. They are victims of marketing propaganda and their opinions or believes do not proof anything. That is like going to ask from 5 year old kid that does Einstein E=mc² still holds today? The public opinion is not the one what rules how computer technology works and what wikipedia or any encyclopedia should have. In scientific article (like article what Linux is), the science is the one what rules that, not opinions. Golftheman (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)