Talk:Linux/Archive 39

About what is this article?
I'm concerned in this problem: About what is this article? These are questions made by very confused reader.
 * 1) If this article is about Linux (kernel of course), why we have Linux kernel article?
 * 2) If this article is not about Linux (kernel), but GNU/Linux, why there are Linux version numbers in infobox? These are kernel version numbers! GNU/Linux as a whole doesn't have version numbers, because there is no official vendor of GNU/Linux but distro vendors.
 * 3) If this article is about Linux (kernel), why there are so many information, that aren't strictly connected with the kernel topic?
 * 4) If this article is not about Linux (kernel), but GNU/Linux, why there is section (Embedded devices), which contains information about Android, which is not GNU/Linux, but independent OS using Linux?
 * 5) If this article is about GNU/Linux, why there are mentioned in infobox so many architectures, where GNU/Linux probably doesn't run, because there are no distributions, which support such architectures? One probably can run BusyBox/Linux or something similar on these architectures.
 * 6) If this article is about Linux-based systems in general (GNU/Linux, OpenBSD/Linux Starch, Android, Firefox OS, Sailfish OS, MeeGo, Syllable Server, Plan 9/Linux Glendix, BusyBox/Linux and so on), where is article about GNU/Linux but not about GNU/Linux naming controversy in particular?
 * 7) If there is no article about GNU/Linux but not about GNU/Linux naming controversy in particular in Wikipedia, why don't move to "GNU/Linux" and modify this article and make separate article titled "Linux-based operating systems"?
 * 8) If this article is about Linux (kernel), why it states, that defining component of Linux is Linux?
 * 9) If this article is about Linux (kernel), why it provides information about userspace of GNU/Linux while not explicitly telling, that it mentions userspace of GNU/Linux?
 * 10) If this article is about Linux (kernel), why it lies, telling that FSF wants Linux (kernel) be named GNU/Linux?
 * 11) If this article is about GNU/Linux, why its title is "Linux"?

For me this article isn't good in fitting in any role.
 * It isn't good in being an article about GNU/Linux, because it uses wrong name for this operating system, contains information specific only for Linux and contains information about other operating systems.
 * It isn't good in being an article about Linux. Obviously (everybody in the world knows that, it's obvious as the fact that Earth is placed in the Milky Way) Linux is a kernel. It is that because it contains many information about GNU/Linux, desktop environments, which can be used in this system, and other topics not specific to Linux.
 * It isn't good in being an article about Linux-based operating systems, because it doesn't contain as much information about all of Linux-based operating systems as needed. It doesn't compare them, doesn't specify differences in userspace software in these systems, like C library, file utilities, text utilities, shells, start and poweroff scripts, doesn't specify common elements in userspace for these systems. Maybe some of them have the same file utilities?

What wikipedians want this article to be? Do they want it to be great source of knowledge, or confusing article full of claptrap? --Uniwersalista (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the operating system commonly known as Linux. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel.  Msnicki (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. So i suppose, that now we already know (if you're right), that this is article about GNU/Linux. So questions 2), 4), 5) and 11) are still actual. Moreover, problems, which i had defined under my questions, are also still actual. They are actual, because this article, although is about GNU/Linux, still contains information, which belong to Linux (kernel) or Linux-based systems topics.--Uniwersalista (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. Tell me we're not going to go through yet another stupid, long-winded argument with yet another newbie editor with an ax to grind who can't be bothered to read either the discussion earlier on this page or the guidelines discussion at WP:COMMONNAME.  This article is about Linux because that's what the vast majority of reliable sources call it.  They do not call it GNU/Linux.  Msnicki (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's more a question of practicality, rather than "can't be bothered to read [earlier discussions]" or user contributions. There is so much misinformation out there on Wikipedia, albeit subtle. Uniwersalista brings up quite a few points, but you seem to be avoiding them rather than participating in the discussion. Obviously this is a topic that many people are concerned about with many opinions. Do you actually have anything to say about it aside from this meta-argument? If you do then I think we'd all like to hear it, but otherwise I can't help but think you are taking editing an encyclopedia article just a little too sensitively. (not trying to downplay your statement about what most people call it, but there's no example and it doesn't answer/add to Uniwersalista's questions) --Trakon (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK man. Let it be Linux although it's stupid. But if this article is about GNU/Linux, which you call Linux, so why there are information specific to Linux (kernel), which are showed as information about GNU/Linux called Linux as a whole? Why there are Android or webOS portrayed as examples of GNU/Linux called Linux in embedded devices? They aren't GNU/Linux called Linux. They are non-GNU/Linux operating systems with Linux as kernel. This shows, that people don't know about what they exactly write. "Linux" in their minds is completely unstructured term, which means in real nothing. By the way it's an example how calling GNU/Linux "Linux" leads to mistakes in understanding, what in fact GNU/Linux, which you call Linux, is. This article is definitly misleading. Or it's just not about GNU/Linux called Linux, but about Linux-based operating systems in general, which leads to conclusion, that it should be moved to "Linux-based operating systems" and rewritten to better show variety of Linux-based systems and to compare their technical details, which comparison this article lacks. If intention of this article wasn't to be a general overview of Linux-based systems, but to be an article about GNU/Linux called Linux, then we have very big mistake, which should never have place in encyclopedia. Mixing up GNU/Linux (which is called by you and other people Linux), Android and webOS and stating, that article intention isn't to be about Linux-based systems in general, is unacceptable in encyclopedia. So what was the intention of this article?! I don't know. Or we can move this article to "GNU/Linux, Android and webOS" (or if you really prefer to name GNU/Linux "Linux" - "Linux, Android and webOS"). Of course we can do nothing and still think, that Wikipedia is reliable encyclopedia. And don't name me "newbie editor". I have account on Wikipedia and sometimes edit minor things, but I'm mostly READER, so my opinion is very important. --Uniwersalista (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, reliable sources are very important, not personal opinions. This article reflects what reliable sources say.  Your argument is based on the understanding that GNU/Linux is the uncontested name of the subject, when the reality is that GNU/Linux is nothing more than a minority POV name not accepted by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources.  - SudoGhost 19:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Look man, forget for a while about GNU/Linux name (but not about GNU/Linux as an object). The fact that you name GNU/Linux "Linux" is the least important here (although still in fact very important). You can name it "Linux". I address bigger problem, that one can't be sure about what is this article.
 * 1) If this article is about GNU/Linux (okay, name it "Linux"!), so what do there Android and webOS? Mixing up GNU/Linux (okay, name it "Linux"!), Android and webOS is a mistake.
 * 2) If the intention of this article is to be an overview of Linux-based systems, so title of this article should be changed to "Linux-based operating systems" and it should be rewritten, because this overview doesn't contain comparison of such systems and is GNU/Linux-centric. And separate article should be written only about GNU/Linux (okay, name it "Linux"!), as it is in case of Android, webOS, Firefox OS and so on (these systems have separate articles). --Uniwersalista (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you read WP:COMMONNAME or any of the discussion earlier on the page? If not, why not?  Msnicki (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I forgot about GNU/Linux name. And please do the same. I already don't want to fight for that, because I know, that I will loss. Now the only thing I want is to investigate, if this article is about GNU/Linux (name it like you want, I can't name what I have in my mind in different manner), or not, and if not, we need separate article about GNU/Linux, like we need separate article about Android (and we have). --Uniwersalista (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (1) The article discusses the relationship between Android and Linux, and the relationship between webOS and Linux, because reliable sources do. (2) Because this is a summary-style article, it covers and summarizes aspects of Linux including the Linux kernel, Linux distributions, and Linux-powered devices.  Those articles already exist; this one provides a general overview that encompasses the entire subject. - SudoGhost 20:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, now, that I read what you wrote (that this is "summary style" article), I know some things:
 * 1) This article is "about everything and about nothing", although it is mostly GNU/Linux-centric.
 * 2) This article is not about Linux (it is not about kernel of Linux-based systems).
 * 3) Android, webOS Firefox OS deserve separate article in Wikipedia.
 * 4) GNU/Linux (or "Linux" if you want) doesn't deserve separate article in Wikipedia, despite it strongly differs from Android, webOS, Firefox OS and so on. The only thing one can do is to assume that Desktop Linux or Linux distributions are the articles, which refer to GNU/Linux (or "Linux"). But GNU/Linux runs not only on desktops, so we have little problem still. And GNU/Linux is not only one Linux-based system, which runs on desktops. And Linux distributions article refers not only to GNU/Linux. --Uniwersalista (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If you feel that strongly that we shouldn't have a separate article on Linux, you are welcome to AfD it, citing the reasons you've given. You will lose.  There are bazillions of reliable sources establishing the notability of this topic, exactly as it's presented in this article.  Msnicki (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean GNU/Linux, writing Linux, no, I don't. You didn't understand me. I do feel exactly something opposite: we should have a separate article about "Linux" (GNU/Linux), but we don't have. At least this article isn't what we should have. Because it is simply about don't know what. --Uniwersalista (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right. I have no idea what your point is except that it still sounds like you'd be happy with the content of this article if only the title was GNU/Linux.  But reliable sources and WP:COMMONNAME don't support that.  What else?  Msnicki (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's simple. I know, that most people call GNU/Linux "Linux". So if i had to guess about what this article is, I would say, that about GNU/Linux. Uuuu... Wait! But i can read there about Android etc... And Wikipedia already has "Linux kernel" article... Android and other Linux-based systems have their own articles... So WTF?! Where's article about GNU/Linux, if this article isn't about GNU/Linux?! And WTH is this article about?! Disclaimer: We assume, that title of this article doesn't matter. --Uniwersalista (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's still impossible to guess what you want, except to complain vaguely that you don't like the article because you don't know what it's about -- a complaint I'm pretty sure would go away if only the title was GNU/Linux, which isn't happening for the reasons stated (over and over). GNU/Linux already redirects to Linux and the naming controversy is mentioned in the lede paragraph.  What else are you asking?  I have no idea.   Msnicki (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I ask for these things:
 * 1) Since I think Wikipedia needs article about GNU/Linux (no matter what title this article would have: "GNU/Linux" or "Linux"), this article should be only about GNU/Linux. That means no text about Android, webOS and other non-GNU/Linux mobile toys (of course there are GNU/Linux mobile systems in general, but Android, webOS, Firefox OS and similar toys don't belong to GNU/Linux family), at least no text, which mislead people, telling, that Android, webOS etc belong to GNU/Linux family of operating systems (of course they do belong to Linux-based family of operating systems).
 * 2) I postulate, that Wikipedia should have, separate from this, article titled "Linux-based operating systems", which would contain comparison of technical details of systems in this family. There would go GNU/Linux, Google Chrome OS, Syllable Server, Android, Firefox OS, webOS and other systems. This article would summarize in more detailed and technical manner various operating systems, which utilizes Linux as their kernel. We already have many articles "Comparison of...", which are useful encyclopedic tools.
 * I DON'T ask for this thing, because world has more serious problems, and if I could change whole society, I would rather teach people about Human Rights, than about semantic correctness and avoiding of claptrap:
 * Moving "Linux" article to "GNU/Linux".
 * Moreover, as long as this article isn't strictly about GNU/Linux, such moving would be nonsense. --Uniwersalista (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (1) This article is about "Linux", as the overwhelming majority of reliable sources understand the term. (2) If you think we need a new article on anything, WP:BEBOLD and go write it.  Msnicki (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have expressed clearly what you want. The confusion comes from denying the term "GNU/Linux" and calling it "Linux", and then saying that any operating system based on Linux is Linux. There is a family of operating systems based on Linux which share common architectural features, using some components from the GNU project, and to which Android (among others) does not belong; and this family is controversially called "GNU/Linux". Can we agree on that? Uniwersalista suggests having an article on this family of operating systems.
 * I'll suggest some reasons why not. (a) There is already Linux distribution. (However, maybe that article is only about the distribution projects themselves and not any of the software which they comprise.) (b) Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, Slackware, Linux Mint etc. do not form a "natural group" - if so, why? Count Truthstein (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ubuntu, Debian (only GNU/Linux of course), Fedora, Gentoo (not any of Gentoo/Alts, not GNU/Hurd), Slackware, Linux Mint etc. do form a natural subset in "Linux-based OS-es" set, because they contain Linux as their kernel and minimal set of userspace OS utilities from GNU/Hurd (or simply GNU) operating system, which are required to make a computer something more than very big brick. This subset is "GNU/Linux family of operating systems". To run a computer, you must have at least very poor text operating system, such as GNU/Linux. This minimal requirements define an operating system, if this operating system is modular (and other features, like windowing system and desktop are optional modules), as UNIX or UNIX-like usually is. If an operating system is non-free monolith, like Windows, we have different situation.
 * Why not Linux distribution article as an article about Linux-based operating systems? Because if so, there will be no article about GNU/Linux distros. And we usually don't call webOS, Android, GNU/Linux, Firefox OS etc. ""Linux" distros" (which means "GNU/Linux distros"). Linux-based systems is higher level of abstraction than distros of any particular Linux-based system, for example than Android distros (CyanogenMod, Replicant) or than GNU/Linux distros.
 * Separate problem is that Linux distribution is as misleading as Linux, because I suppose it is about GNU/Linux distros, and it contains information about Android. We usually don't call Android a GNU/Linux distro (or "Linux" distro, if "Linux" means GNU/Linux).
 * --Uniwersalista (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This article serves as a general summary of what "Linux" is, as reliable sources describe it. It encompasses the distros, the kernel, all of it.  These details have further, more detailed articles per WP:SUMMARY.  There is already an article called Linux distribution that covers that subject in more detail.  This article cannot be titled "Linux distribution" because is covers aspects that have nothing to do with the distros, and we can't arbitrarily limit the scope of an article when reliable sources do not.  We don't call Android a GNU/Linux distro because it isn't, even Stallman says as much.  Reliable sources often refer to it as "Linux" in some way, so it would be inappropriate to omit that from the article.  Should this article be called GNU/Linux?  No, because reliable sources refer to it as Linux, and the article also encompasses subjects that even "GNU/Linux advocates" such as Richard Stallman point out have nothing to do with GNU or their definition of GNU/Linux.  The same reason applies to calling it "Linux distribution", and such an article already exists to cover that subject in more detail than this general overall article. - SudoGhost 22:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Now we can make some conclusions:
 * This article (Linux) is a not well-written summary about Linux-based systems in general. For example it doesn't have technical comparison of all of these systems without exceptions (it doesn't mention for example OpenBSD/Linux Starch and Syllable Server). It is GNU/Linux-centric. I know, that you will write something like "Reliable sources omits OpenBSD/Linux and Syllable Server and are GNU/Linux-centric while being silent about GNU/Linux, and name all of those "Linux" while not making distinction between various Linux-based systems; so do this article.". But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and have to provide knowledge, not people's mistakes and delusions.
 * There is no article about GNU/Linux in Wikipedia.
 * But there are articles about Android, webOS, Firefox OS, Google Chrome OS. This is inconsistent. There's no reason, why GNU/Linux doesn't have separate article (this article of course could have name "Linux", if you prefer [but what name would Linux article have then?!]).
 * There is an article called GNU/Linux naming controversy, which is only about controversy.
 * In Wikipedia there is an article called Linux distribution, which covers mainly GNU/Linux distros and Android, making no distinction between higher level (Linux-based systems) and lower level (distributions of every of those systems). If this article is about GNU/Linux, Android must not be there and its title makes inconsistency, because Linux article already names all of Linux-based OS-es "Linux", so this name can't be used to refer to GNU/Linux only. And "Linux distribution" can't be a name for GNU/Linux, because:
 * 1) The fact that a product is a distribution of Linux based system rather than a standalone Linux-based system doesn't make it GNU/Linux distro.
 * 2) There are other Linux-based systems, which have distributions, at least Android.
 * In Wikipedia there is an article called Comparison of Linux distributions, which mentions Chrome OS, of which is controversial, if it belongs to GNU/Linux family. But this article only compares distros and can't be treated like a general article about GNU/Linux.
 * In Wikipedia there is an article called Desktop Linux, which is rather about desktop use of GNU/Linux, about desktop environments an so on, than about GNU/Linux. And we know, that GNU/Linux is used not only on dekstops. And we know, that GNU/Linux is not only desktop Linux-based system.
 * We can't treat Wikipedia as a reliable source of knowledge in case of GNU/Linux. Wikipedia can give us only a bunch of opinions and beliefs commonly shared in society by majority of people, who usually don't know anything about this topic or are just too sloppy to refer to their knowledge in scientific consistent manner. Hmmm... Is Wikipedia really an encyclopedia?...
 * I support decision, that Linux was removed from "Engineering and technology good articles".
 * --Uniwersalista (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * GNU/Linux does not have a separate article because it's not a thing, it's nothing more than a fringe name pushed by a minority of individuals and rejected by the majority of the Linux community and reliable sources. That's the only thing notable about it, and thus there's an article that covers that name.  There's nothing inconsistent about using reliable sources to dictate content. - SudoGhost 15:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Ubuntu, Debian (only GNU/Linux of course), Fedora, Gentoo (not any of Gentoo/Alts, not GNU/Hurd), Slackware, Linux Mint etc. do form a natural subset in "Linux-based OS-es" set" - I agree with this. There are two cases, depending on whether you agree with this:
 * * They are not a natural subset. In this case there is no difference between the Linux and Linux kernel articles, if the only defining characteristic of Linux is that it uses the Linux kernel. These two articles should be merged. In fact, much of the article is already about the Linux kernel, and not some larger system. The infobox, for example, with the Tux logo (originated in the kernel project), claim that it was first released in 1991 (it was the kernel which was released in 1991), the latest release number (in fact, the latest release number of the kernel, not of some larger system), and so on. Whatever the merged article is called (probably Linux), it would cover all uses of the Linux kernel. The Wikipedia policy page WP:SUMMARY has often been adduced as a counter-argument to merging these pages, but I do not see the relevance.
 * * They are a natural grouping. Then should the Linux article cover this grouping? Either it should, in which case Android and other OS's are outside the scope of this article (and there should still be a note to say that these other OS's are still sometimes referred to as Linux, because that is what some sources say); or if not, they would need their own article. But what is that article to be called? Perhaps we could have an article GNU/Linux which starts off with something like "GNU/Linux is a controversial term posited by the GNU project which refers to a group of operating systems using the Linux kernel and other core operating system components developed as part of the GNU project." We would need sources to describe what exactly this term covered. Perhaps the existing article GNU/Linux_naming_controversy could be used. Count Truthstein (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)