Talk:Linux/Archive 38

IPA+respelling notation based on Thorvalds's own audio recording as linked to in the article
The IPA and respelling « / ˈlɪnʊks/ lin-uuks » needs slight correction; it should be /i/ or /iː/, not /ɪ/ — /ˈliːnʊks/ lee-nuuks  (see IPA audio samples in the German Wikipedia ) I'm going to correct this in the article. TurnspitDawg (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

FSF's reason for "GNU/Linux"
In the opening paragraph:


 * Since the C compiler that builds Linux and the main supporting user space system tools and libraries originated in the GNU Project, initiated in 1983 by Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation prefers the name GNU/Linux when these tools and libraries are used.

It is true that the FSF prefers the name "GNU/Linux", but the reason cited here is completely inaccurate. The FSF's position, and why they call the system "GNU/Linux", is that the system is ultimately a variant of the GNU operating system, not because the "tools and libraries" of GNU are used and not because "the C compiler [of GNU]... builds Linux" (how the Linux kernel is made has nothing to do with their position). It ought to say something more like:


 * Because it considers Linux to be basically the GNU system with the Linux kernel added, the Free Software Foundation prefers the name "GNU/Linux" when referring to the operating system as a whole.

This sentence reflects why the FSF calls the system "GNU/Linux" much more accurately.

Sources:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.63.112 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, something more like this:


 * Because it considers Linux to be a variant of the GNU operating system, the Free Software Foundation prefers the name GNU/Linux when referring to the operating system as a whole.

108.70.63.112 (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Source Model Discussion
I'd like to touch on a point raised by Ziiike: the Linux kernel is not "free and open source" since it includes software without the source code. Specifically, plenty of non-free firmware is included into the official git repository git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git and the fact that it's not free is documented in firmware/WHENCE. Consequently, I propose we change the Source Model to at least "mostly free and open source with some non-free components" or "... firmware". melikamp (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Firmware? Definition is hardware based software like motherboard bios or PXE boot ROM on a network card. Perhaps you should clarify since it causes your post to make no sense. The Linux kernel team is quite strict about not accepting proprietary drivers or those containing proprietary code, however many distributions e.g. Novell/IBM SUSE contain FOSS non-GPL code. Are you confusing GPL and FOSS (e.g. Apache license code)? Shjacks45 (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The Murky Origins of Linux & "Lions' Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition, with Source Code"
No mention of this seminal book. Although the early Linux distributions (e.g. kernel v .91) used the Minix file system, it is obvious from examining the code that different coding philosophy was used. As well as public posts between Torvalds and Tannenbaum denying the connection. I would like to note that the early Linux kernels had bugs in common with Unix v6 whose source code was available in Lions' Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition, with Source Code, used by many schools etc. to teach Unix. As an "inspiration" (this wiki notes Minix) to not mention this text would be a sin. Shjacks45 (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The Unix Operating System
The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux is wrong. The Unix Operating System was first written in PDP then later re-written in C. Please fix this. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarquazi (talk • contribs) 23:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is fine. To quote the UNIX authors "Early versions of the operating system were written in assembly language, but during the summer of 1973, it was rewritten in C." source: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/cacm.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.59.46.227 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually it was originally written on a PDP-7 in the "B" language (not assembler), then ported to PDP-11, then the "C" was written for the PDP-11, then UNIX was recompiled in C. Note that C (and B) have many characteristics drawn from respective hardware; reminding me of an assembler for a "VM". Shjacks45 (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Linux core
Hi, folks. As can be seen in this: Template:GNU or this List of GNU packages article. the GNU Project has made considerable contribution to the pool of available free and open-source software, among which there are a couple of strategical ones, i.e. unique and/or hard to replace. The actual question is, how much of the software contained in a "typical" Linux installation is contributed by the GNU project:
 * 1) GNU C Library (1.000.000 lines of finest C code), (despite Ulrich Drepper's argument with Stallman, this is GNU software)
 * 2) GNU Compiler Collection for diverse programming languages and several instruction sets;
 * 3) GNU build system
 * 4) GNU Find Utilities, there is BusyBox, which is non-GNU (but also GPLv2)
 * 5) GNU Core Utilities
 * 6) GNU Binutils
 * 7) GNU Debugger  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotXW (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) GNU GRUB, there is/was LILO (boot loader)
 * 9) Bash (Unix shell)
 * 10) GNOME, the desktop environment though I am not sure how much GNU is in there

Not GNU are
 * Clang+LLVM (pushed hard by Qualcomm, Apple Inc., Google Inc. et al., read Phoronix)
 * the entire X Window System, the implementation of Wayland, Mesa 3D, Free and open-source device drivers: graphics, Comparison of open-source wireless drivers, etc.
 * the entire KDE Software Compilation, most Qt-based software, etc.
 * diverse Template:Open-source video games

As the adoption rate of the Linux operating system rises, the percentage of users who care if the code of the compiled and packages software they are using is available under some free license, dwindles. The share of those who care whether the software is developed by the KDE project, by some professor in Bangalore, by an individual (e.g. Hans Reiser) or by the GNU project, may be much much much lower. So, the probably is er high, that the day-to-day user's don't care.

The question is whether we, the Wikipedia contributors (and contributor wannabes and querulous person and random passers-by and ...), deem the contribution of the GNU Project big enough or strategical enough or simply important enough (they did kind of lay the cornerstone, and where lacking a (GPL'ed?) kernel), to talk about GNU/Linux instead of Linux when we refer to the entire operating system based on the Linux kernel. As I see it, this is only about giving credit. And I do not mind to give them credit for their achievements, which in case of the GNU Project is much more then just contributing code.

Additionally to contributing (valuable) code since long before Google Inc. existed, the FSF and the GNU project do have a couple of valid arguments. However, I've had enough of the whole argy-bargy. I do not care, how the Wikipedia refers to "it". But I would like some documentation... ;-)

For example, while working on File:LAMP software bundle.svg I pondered whether to include the GNU C Library (and or uClibc, dietlibc, ..) or the GNU Core Utilities or systemd. I decided against it, because I wanted the space to rather additionally mention Snort or RRDtool or other useful packages available on top of the Linux core.

Instead of wasting more time arguing, I would rather create another article ...hahaha... called Linux core and describe there, what else besides the Linux kernel, is part of such a Linux core. Maybe OpenWrt or Linux From Scratch could assist in creating and grooming such an article, which would be technical in nature. The basic question is, what do Router-Linux, Server-Linux, LAMP-Linux, Dekstop-Linux and Mobile-Linux have in common besides the Linux kernel. When looking at Android, it relies on libbionic instead of the glibc, and probably BusyBox, probably not much. When looking at the mer-based stuff that is about to be distributed soon or at Tizen, probably a little more. But what? ScotXW (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

IOCTL in the wrong place
WHy is ioctl mentioned alongside TRAP, CALL, BRK, INT at the top of the "kernel mode" box? ioctl is a system call just like open, exec, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.194.245 (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Linux From Scratch
Articles for deletion/Linux From Scratch could use some help. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Article structure over multiple articles
I envision: ScotXW (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Linux – article about all operating systems based on the Linux kernel
 * Linux range of use – outsourcing of the above article
 * Linux for servers – there is no such article, we merely have LAMP (software bundle); what about Linux as router OS with BIRD, B.A.T.M.A.N., Quagga and XORP? What about Linux-based MTAs or mail-servers? What about LDAP-servers? What about OpenStack? Virtualization stacks? There should be enough for entire article.
 * Linux on the desktop – outsourcing of the above article
 * Linux as gaming platform – outsourcing of the above article: SteamOS, Pandora's OS, commonalities in the software architecture: Simple DirectMedia Layer, graphics drivers, etc.
 * Linux for mobile devices – Android, Tizen, Sailfish OS, software architecture: input stack, multitouch, Plasma Active, Ubuntu touch, etc.
 * Linux for embedded systems – everything without a touchscreen: CPE, machine control, industrial automation,medical instruments, etc.
 * Linux distribution – article about a form of distribution of Linux kernel-based operating systems (for supercomputers, wireless routers or desktop computers, etc.)