Talk:Linux/Archive 42

Suggestion: Refer to "Linux" as a collection of systems, not "an" OS
This article refers to "Linux" (by which it means what I call "GNU/Linux") as "an" operating system. This language is supported by the common terminology, "[GNU/]Linux distribution", but it is factually inaccurate. It suggests that it's all one system that people have minor variations on, and doesn't properly reflect GNU/Linux's history.

Neither the GNU Project nor Linus Torvalds ever released a system called "GNU/Linux" or "Linux". GNU and Linux were two separate projects, both of which sought to create an operating system, but neither of them have ever had a release, because the two projects complimented each other: GNU needed a kernel, and Linux had only a kernel. So third parties took GNU and Linux and combined them together. These combinations gained their own names, such as "Slackware", and were described as "Linux" systems. Torvalds accepted this, and declared that such combinations of GNU and Linux components were Linux systems. Later, the GNU Project also accepted the practice of combining GNU and Linux (though it insisted on an alternate name for the result such as "GNU/Linux").

Let's not allow weird naming conventions to determine the facts presented on Wikipedia. The collection of systems that reside under the name "GNU/Linux" or "Linux" is several unrelated projects to develop operating systems: Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Slackware, Arch, Gentoo, etc. These different projects are called "distributions", but what they really are is separate projects, some based on each other and some not, to make GNU/Linux operating systems. So, for example, rather than this:


 * Linux is a Unix-like and POSIX-compliant computer operating system assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The main form of distribution is through Linux distributions. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Because it considers Linux to be a variant of the GNU operating system, initiated in 1983 by Richard Stallman, the Free Software Foundation prefers the name GNU/Linux when referring to the operating system as a whole (see GNU/Linux naming controversy).

The opening paragraph should be something more like this:


 * A Linux system is a Unix-like and POSIX-compliant computer operating system based on the Linux kernel and the GNU userland. Individual Linux systems are generally referred to as Linux distributions. Because Linux systems contain essential components from both GNU (the userland) and Linux (the kernel), the Free Software Foundation prefers the name GNU/Linux (see GNU/Linux naming controversy).

99.18.29.33 (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hehe, here we go again. :) How about keeping to the convention of "Linux" referring to a distribution, and "Linux kernel" referring to the kernel itself?  IMO, current lead section is just fine, bringing together the key defining points of Linux distributions and the Linux kernel &mdash; while keeping happy both "sides" of the GNU/Linux naming controversy.  Then again, what should we do with key non-GNU components present in almost every Linux distribution (X Window, for example)? &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. I think the policy of choosing the terminology that is most popular is an appropriate policy. I'm just suggesting referring to "Linux" as if it is a group of operating systems, which it is, rather than referring to it as if it were one single operating system. The history of GNU/Linux systems (or "Linux distros") is not like BSD, Windows, or Mac OS, for example; Ubuntu is historically unrelated to Fedora, Arch, and Slackware; they didn't branch off from a single parent project the way FreeBSD branched off from BSD. The only similarity between these systems is a technical one: what kind of basic system they are. 99.18.31.24 (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're totally correct there, and that's why half of the lead section is dedicated to describing Linux distrubutions. I'd say it's fine, and should be understandable that way, plus I've just cleaned it up a bit.  It would be quite hard to squeeze everything into the very first paragraph, if you agree...  Thoughts? &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In everyday speech, I would say that my computer is running Linux, and it only has one operating system, not a group of them. Equally, by the logic above, there is no common parent to Windows 98 and Windows 8 that I know of, and yet there's no call to say that Windows is a group of operating systems. I don't see any real-world problem that would be solved by making this rather obscure and counter-intuitive change, let alone any reliable sources cited here that call for it. --Nigelj (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll try to advocate a bit... :) The OP had in mind something like "there's only one version of FreeBSD x.y", with a single source tree etc., contrary to what we have with various Linux distributions.  Though, I'd say it's pretty well covered in the current lead section. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Debian GNU/Linux
"The media and common usage, however, refers to this family of operating systems simply as Linux, as do many large Linux distributions (for example, SUSE Linux and Red Hat). Some distributions, notably Debian, use GNU/Linux." This is very misleading information. Debian does not call "Linux" "GNU/Linux". It calls the distribution which ships with GNU-components and the Linux kernel "Debian GNU/Linux". It calls the distribution which ships with GNU-components and the FreeBSD kernel "Debian GNU/kFreeBSD". It calls the distribution which ships with GNU-components and the Hurd kernel "Debian GNU/Hurd". Do you see the pattern? Although the Hurd Kernel is indeed called GNU Hurd, it is not the same for FreeBSD and Linux. (Or do we have a FreeBSD_naming_controversy on our hand?) Debian does not _name_ Linux. Debian describes the components. I'll remove this part. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello there! Misleading or not, Debian does use GNU/Linux; probably some more language should be added for a broader context. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * could you provide a link where Debian calls Linux GNU/Linux? --RicardAnufriev (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course, this link for example. Debian clearly uses GNU/Linux when referring to the operating system as a whole; the fact there are also GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/Hurd changes nothing. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course it changes something. Debian calls Hurd GNU/Hurd, FreeBSD GNU/kfreeBSD in the very same sentence as it calls Linux GNU/Linux. This is a controversy! Three controversies to be exact! (Or none. To repeat myself: They refer to _their_ distribution as GNU/Linux, because they have packed GNU and Linux into it. They don't name _the_ operationg system, they describe _their_ product)
 * Of course you could say "it is different in case of GNU/Linux, because RMS says so", but this is just a deliberate misunderstanding on your part.
 * Any other link? --RicardAnufriev (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, and what's the Debian's product if it isn't an operating system? Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to prove?  That Debian calls its product GNU/Linux, and that its product in fact isn't an operating system?  That would make sense only if you put hard lines between a kernel, an operating system and a distribution.  The kernel, for sure, should be easily distinguishable, but the difference between operating systems and distributions is quite fuzzy and thus debatable.
 * Then again&mdash;if the whole GNU/Linux thing isn't just politics&mdash;why doesn't Debian include many other sources of software into its product's name? Majority of the software in its product comes from other sources, and those should be mentioned if they actually aren't renaming Linux to GNU/Linux.  In other words, Debian isn't packing just GNU and Linux into (one of) their product(s); they're packing much more.
 * At the same time, let's remember that the majority of people reading this article won't go into the blurry kernel vs. operating system vs. distribution differences – and they all see Debian calling their product GNU/Linux, while it's in fact Linux.  So, Debian calls GNU/Linux something what's actually Linux –  that's what it looks like when you take the "rocket science" out. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wtf? Why are you citing an article, which analyzes Ubuntu's LOC composition in a discussion about Debian?
 * See it this way. Let's say Car = Engine + Electronics + Stuff
 * A possible car would be: FordX = V8_engine + IBM_wiring + Stuff
 * If Ford was bought by IBM and started selling this car as "FordX IBM/V8", would you write "A naming controversy exists, because V8 cars are called IBM/V8 by Ford"?
 * Do you know, why Debian calls its product GNU/Linux, although it was calling Linux "Linux" in the beginning?
 * Debian was sponsored by FSF's GNU project, which was founded by RMS.
 * The only sources, which try to push for "GNU/Linux" are (what a surprise!): RMS himself, the FSF, the GNU project and Debian.
 * This marketing trick does not make Linux "GNU/Linux". It just makes "Debian GNU/Linux" "Debian GNU/Linux". --RicardAnufriev (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've cited that article only because it was an analysis closest to analyzing actual Debian's composition. Regarding the car example, I simply wouldn't care enough about something like that, as that's a purely commercial world; when you buy something, you can rename it, burn it down, or do whatever you want.  But, with Linux and in the free software world, it's about much more than just naming products –  if you agree.
 * Well, I'm glad we're finally on the same page – you've just confirmed my assumption that the whole GNU/Linux thing, as coming from Debian, is pure politics. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Wanna know why there are some minor Distros and some "Free" Hardware, which push for GNU/Linux?

Most of them are small, have a small PR budget and want to benefit from the FSF endorsement, which is seen by many FOSS-people as a quality seal or something. I'd be all in favor for open source people/movement to help each other (I love the philosophy of FOSS myself).

But sadly the FSF is abusing their reputation to push their agenda to cross-promote their products.

Here is one criteria to get the FSF quality seal:

''Cooperation with FSF and GNU Public Relations

The seller must use FSF approved terminology for the FSF's activities and work, in all statements and publications relating to the product. This includes product packaging, and manuals, web pages, marketing materials, and interviews about the product.

Specifically, the seller must use the term "GNU/Linux" for any reference to an entire operating system which includes GNU and Linux, not "Linux" or "Linux-based system" or "a system with the Linux kernel" or any other term that mentions "Linux" without "GNU". Likewise, the seller must talk about "free software" more prominently than "open source."''

http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/criteria

Of course one could say "Yeah, they are using GNU-stuff, so it's natural that GNU wants them to call it GNU-xy. But they could just use not-GNU-stuff instead."

Could be this easy, but the FSF uses tricks to avoid that: Another criteria is the usage of "free" licences for ALL packages. The FSF has of course decided, that some licences are not free (although they are less restrictive than GPL3). "Accidently" the licences of most GNU-alternatives are not included into the list of recognized "free licences".

Ergo: If you want to get a FSF endorsement you must use GNU-packages (no other alternatives with "free" licences) and therefore must use their terminology e.g. "GNU/Linux"

A very neat, subtle web of laws, licences and rules to maximize their PR, while blocking other FOSS projects (competitors).

That's why I dislike the whole "Linux name controversy", which, in my view, is just hijacking Wikipedia to help their PR. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, that's the GNU's way to promote their own ideas... While I also love most of the ideas behind the whole Free Software movement, I'm turned away many times by the way RMS promotes them –  he sounds almost like promoting a new religion, with an outfit to match. :)  That's turning me away as it starts to sound like politics and an attempt to suck everyone under the same umbrella, what's similar to what the commercial world (which RMS rightfully fights against) also tries to do.
 * I do agree that the whole thing turned into politics, wasting a lot of people's energy; Free Software movement played a giant role back at the time, but it's natural that people want to play on their own, instead of under one big happy umbrella. In my opinion, they should let it go, while remaining satisfied by knowing they've played a massive role which will never fade away. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverts of recent cleanups
I recently cleaned up a bunch of various problems with the article:


 * 1) Removed "and POSIX-compliant" from the first sentence: this isn't so essential a point as to require cluttering up the first sentence, is only arguable correct (mainline Linux is not perfectly POSIX-compliant, often by design) and is semi-implied by "Unix-like" anyway.
 * 2) Remove the "supported platforms" list from the infobox. Trying to make this comprehensive is completely hopeless. Other such lists have already been removed from the infobox in favour of discussion in the article body.
 * 3) Removed a bunch of level-four headers from the beginning of the history section which separated sections only one or two paragraphs long. This is simply poor style.
 * 4) Unpiped " free and open source software licenses ". The split between those two articles is a nonsense which is long overdue for addressing.
 * 5) Removed File:Linux kernel ubiquity.svg, which is completely illegible at its default resolution and which substantially duplicates other diagrams.
 * 6) Removed the unnecessary column markup around the "See also" section, which is already fairly short; columns encourage expansion, and this section should not be expanded.

All of those have been reverted. IMO that should be undone. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It was me reverting the above listed changes, as to me those weren't improvements; however, let's hear the other editors' opinions. Though, I agree that "supported platforms" list in the infobox might benefit from becoming truncated. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with number 3: move the "level-four headers" into history of Linux ScotXW (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It wasn't about moving the content, it was about merging the subsections. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree in principle that the version with subsections serves as a possible skeleton for the expansion of the history article; however, WP:SUMMARY implies that a shorter version of that would be retained here, as opposed to ScotXW's removal of the entire thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

relation to the BSDs, relation to free-software and open-source software
The very nice diagram File:Unix history.svg is linked in the Linux article, but it not present in any of the BSD-articles: FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, MidnightBSD, DragonFly BSD. It is not even in the Berkeley Software Distribution article itself. Why? Why this obsession in the Wikipedia with this?

There are the articles POSIX and Single UNIX Specification. Then there is the article on Unix and additionally also "Unix-like".


 * 1) I would like to DUMP everything in this article that talks about Minix, Unix, Unix-like and bla, bla, bla into one of those articles.
 * 2) I would also like to DUMP everything in this article that talks about "free software" and "open-source software" and the hhuuuuge differences between them two camps into, well, into somewhere else.

Comments? ScotXW (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you ask for comments, you should wait more than 10 minutes before doing this. I'm not convinced this was the right thing to do.  Respectfully, I'm reverting your changes for now and would like to see what others have to say.  Msnicki (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: From one side, moving that content would make sense, as it's not directly related to what Linux in fact is. On the other hand, having a broader context available is a good thing, and not many readers would go around to hunt those parts in other articles.  Also, that content provides a bit of the historical overview, what's also a good thing –  let's remember that Linux is much more than what it currently represents.  Having all that in mind, my vote goes to keeping the content. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * for the historical overview, there is the article: History of Linux. As User:Thumperward already mentioned, the level-four headers are poor form; in fact, their sole purpose seem to be, to produce publicity for the mentioned software that pops up in the TOC (Table of contents)
 * for the "broader context", there are the articles POSIX, Single UNIX Specification, Unix and additionally also Unix-like. It should be enough to link to these articles.
 * This article should concern itself with Template:Linux layers, but in a far less sloppy form. Especially details of the Linux kernel interna, belong in that article ScotXW (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think that four or five paragraphs on the general buildup to the kernel announcement is untoward. WP:SUMMARY does not demand that articles be stripped entirely of anything covered by more detailed history pages. As for why this article does a better job of informing readers than the BSD articles, it's because this one attracts far more attention and thus has iterated to higher quality (in rather a neat analogy to the way that Linux itself has left the BSDs behind). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This article should describe the Linux family of operating system, and IMO there is much to much emphasis on the relation to BSD and MINIX and bla, while the actual thing, Linux is quite poorly described. Clearly, this article has been high-jacked by free software-zealots as well as BSD- and MINIX-trumpeteers. It ok to link this stuff, but they all got their own articles... The Linux-article, in its current form, is absolutely poor-quality, so lets us omit useless flattering. Not only does the superfluous free-software, BSD-, MINIX- content create a wrong picture of the reality, but it additionally makes it hard to actually write a good article. ScotXW (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have a problem with removing the mugshots of Tannenbaum and Stallman, and the micro-sections should be removed again to give us something like this revision, but I don't see that you're making any compelling argument at all regarding trimming that further. The problem with this article is not particular special-interest groups; it's that fanboys are typically poor writers, and this article has a greater-than-usual ratio of fanboys to disinterested writers for an article which isn't on, say, cartoon ponies. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * On second thought, and after looking again at the above linked revision of the article, I agree that ditching the subsectioning actually makes it better. Went ahead and  the subsections again.  Of course, more work could be put into the  section regarding its readability, but now it's better than it was before. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * At the same time, History of Linux article appears to me as a totally unreadable mess. Why don't we make that article good, instead of attacking the not-so-bad Linux article with a chainsaw? &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. And instead of repairing that article, people decided to DUMP their stuff into this article. That is why I voted to UN-DUMP it again. ScotXW (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it's actually a good thing to have a brief historical overview in this article. This is an encyclopedia, and one of its purposes is to provide a broader context. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed. We are compelled to say something about these subjects in this article; the question is the degree of coverage. Most of the detail should be left to sub-articles, but not all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I wanted to read some other comments before deciding.  I like the article the way it is.  One really big problem with an article like this is that there are a lot of disparate viewpoints in the sources and among our editors and they all need to be represented proportionately.  We need to tell what seems like a whole story.  It's not enough to have a See also section.  ScotXW is to be commended for being bold and giving us something to think about.  But respectfully, I disagree with the proposed change.    Msnicki (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

network transparency & X window system
Jus thought I'd mention something a casual reader (I) saw: In the "User Interface" section, "Most popular user interfaces are based on the X Window System, often simply called "X". It provides network transparency and permits a graphical application running on one system to be displayed on another where a user may interact with the application.[56]" (emphasis added)

clicking on network transparency brings you to an article where the second line claims it is incorrect to speak of the X window system in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cd1207 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello there! That's a very good point; went ahead and clarified both articles, please check them out. &mdash; Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)