Talk:Linux/Archive 6

Security section?
Would a security section be appropriate with maybe a link to secunia.com Linux kernel vulnerabilities? I noticed here and also on the Linux Distribution comparison this information isn't displayed. It would be nice to see that information in both places, as security is one of the reasons given near the start of the article for people migrating. ToPreventAnon 18:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think a link to security vulnerabilities makes much sense, but a section about security is appropriate. - Centrx 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Would a balanced article contain both the strengths (e.g. restricted user access by default) and the weaknesses (number of issues and or outstanding issues) of a particular security model? ToPreventAnon 14:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The number of outstanding vulnerabilities is only peripherally related to the user model in that vulnerabilities may not be exploitable should the compromised system have limited rights. In general, adding links to open bugs doesn't make for better articles: it's just news, as lists quickly get out of date.
 * The reason security is brought up when switching is because when found, the licencing model allows issues to be fixed more quickly. It isn't because of a head-count of open bugs. Chris Cunningham 14:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed the user model was just an example of one of the strengths, there are numerous others. So considering that bugs are just news would that make this  just a news article?  Perhaps a reference to a bugs list would be out of place in the Linux section like you suggest, but is valid in an operating systems comparison list.  Strangely the Linux distros comparison article has this information omitted, but I digress.
 * "the licensing model allows issues to be fixed more quickly" in theory yes, that is one of the beauties of the Open source model.
 * I am glad that people are in agreement that a security section would be both useful and informative. You've talked me round I think open bugs list would be out of place now; I maintain that an objective strengths and weaknesses examination is important for neutrality.ToPreventAnon 16:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * About those comparison pages: Lists are in a different class from articles; in general I do not think they are strictly appropriate for a straightforward encyclopedia but they remain in their own pages, not interfering with other articles, and user contributions may not be zero-sum, the people who edit them cannot simply be "re-assigned" to work on articles. In particular, a user reading one of these comparison tables has already chosen to wade through superficial statistics and data points. Still, the numbers are meaningless in themselves. - Centrx 06:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro sentence
This pointless nitpicking isn't productive. "Open Source" has basically lost its strict original definition now, which is why it's being incorporated into the phrase "open source development". I'm reverting the recent change. Chris Cunningham 12:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Stupid, stupid, stupid, childish, childish, childish, can you all please give up this revert war, nobody really cares if the paragraph starts with "open source" or with "free software" or which one is capitalized.AdrianTM 13:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents: Strictly speaking, Linux is the kernel.  The development process behind it is, in practice, Open Source.  It is also free, but that's besides the point.  Rather than arguing about which should be listed first, maybe an entire rewording is in order.  Like this:  "The Linux operating system, also known as GNU/Linux, is an alternative operating system that both influences and is influenced by the open source movement.  Unlike proprietary operating systems such as Windows or Mac OS, its underlying source code, with few exceptions is available to the public for anyone to freely use, modify and redistribute.  The operating system is available in a number of configurations known as distributions, each maintained by a separate party.  It is most often available free to anyone though some distributions offer service contracts at a nominal fee."  -- or something along those lines.  I just think the intro in general is weak.  Feel free to disagree.  But to waste time debating which should be first (Open source vs. Free) is a waste of time.  Switching the order does not enhance the article in any way.  --Coplan 16:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

History subsections
Subsections like "Pronunciation" seem to have nothing to do with history... suggest move or rename :) RN 18:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, but it does fit, and "Pronunciation" does not warrant its own full section. What is mostly given in that section is a history: The pronunciation of similar words in the language, and a past account by Mr. Torvalds of its pronunciation. It fits also because the rest of the article talks about Linux itself, as the computer software, whereas the history section is the place for ancillary and background information that is not so much relevant to computing itself, like the SCO litigation and the GNU issue.


 * The only other way I think it could be handled is by putting a "(pronounced BLAH)" in the intro, and then deleting everything else currently in the pronunciation section, which, being deletion of good information, is not warranted in this case. -- Centrx 21:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I expected the history flow from start to finish, instead it sort of restarts in each subsection. I guess it is alright for now - it is nice and to the point, that's for sure :). RN 20:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Biased
Although my knowledge of linux is not that good, i know this article is very biased. Especially critisism on usability can be added. It is true linux can be userfriendly for the basic users (when configured properly and applications are ready to use), but when a user wants to do a little setting tweaking in the system (modify some basic things, problem solving, etc) a reasonable windows user is totally lost.
 * You need to learn the tools, Linux is not Windows. Linux is easier to install and operate than Windows, I know because I've used Widows since Windows 3.1 (including professionally) and have been using Linux for only 2 years, I am better and more at home in Linux although I've been using it for shorter period. AdrianTM 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't write it myself, because i know to little about linux (only tried Ubuntu and was lost when my internet connection wasn't working and no way to solve the problem; windows would guide me to the window where to solve the problem). Linux still has a long way to go, this article only reflects the positive side.
 * if you have problems with Windows connection you are lost too, especially wireless, since what is going is hidden from user you have hard time to figure what is wrong, however you should realize that Wikipedia is not for pushing your point of views (read about it at NPOV AdrianTM 21:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Simply having difficulty or being "lost" changing advanced settings does not constitute a usability problem that is any different from that with any other operating system. A reasonable Linux user is also totally lost when trying to "tweak" some settings in Windows. I, for one, find problem solving easier in Linux, and can solve problems that are by design unsolvable on a Windows system. - Centrx 02:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, not to mention that most of the "usability problems" usually reported have to do with installation, or we all know that Windows comes preinstalled on most of the systems, if you really want to compare Linux fairly: buy a preinstalled Linux system and see how it works -- you'll not complain then about configuring drivers. As about the common complain "it's hard to install programs" Linux is also easier than Windows: you have things like 1-click install or one command upgrade that upgrades all packages (try that in Windows). The only problem appears when you try to install Windows programs in Linux, but that's a little bit like using gas in a Diesel car... (not that's impossible, WINE and Cedega are getting pretty good in running Windows programs, Google for example released Picasa for Linux that runs in WINE) -- AdrianTM 06:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The user above is correct in that it has some unfortunate bias issues via ommision. Although there are a couple dubious statements such as

Which runs into the causation vs. correlation issue - for example, one could argue that the reason people "tend to be more technologically oriented" is that linux is simply more difficult to use (that's assuming people "tend to be more technologically oriented" in the first place). Criticisms arn't always true either, they are by their nature often just opinions, albiet opinions of reliable sources :). RN 20:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Before easy-to-use front-ends and automated tools, this high configurability meant there were many options that could tweak every little thing. In some cases this meant that you had to specify every little setting, and over-all it meant it was more complex. So, yes, it's related, but the essential reason for technologically oriented users choosing Linux was the configurability. There were less difficulty barriers because the users were technologically adept, but that does not meant they would have chosen it simply because it was only a more difficult version with the same configurability as Windows. - Centrx 20:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Another reason is that only technically oriented are inclined to install other Operating Systems, that doesn't say anything about how easy or hard is to use or install Linux. Nowadays Linux is easier to install than Windows, especially installable LiveCDs: Mepis, Ubuntu (Dapper), PCLinuxOS, etc install in 10-20 minutes and give you a full operating system (including Office software, image editing software, mutiprotocol IM clients, usable browser(s)) AdrianTM 20:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

GNU/Linux
I don't think the first sentence should say that Linux is also known as GNU/Linux. "Linux" refers to the kernel, which doesn't have anything to do with GNU. "Linux" IS NOT THE SAME as "GNU/Linux". I'm not sure if I should change this, does anyone have any objections? --Bsmntbombdood 06:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "This article is about the operating system which uses the Linux kernel. For the kernel itself, see Linux kernel." so apparently the article is exactly about Linux OS, not strictly about kernel. My wild guess is that you'll provoke a holy war if you remove that... AdrianTM 06:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to start a holy war, which is why I didn't change it. This also brings up the discusion of "What is an operating system?". Some would say that an OS is just the kernel (ie. Linux), others would say that it is the kernel plus essential utilities (ie GNU/Linux), and still others would say that an OS is the kernel and a GUI (ie Windows or GNU/Linux+X+Gnome). --Bsmntbombdood 06:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * People in general (not kernel developers) when they talk about "Linux" they don't talk only about the kernel, that's why we have 2 separate articles about Linux and about Linux kernel, that's why we have "This article is about the operating system which uses the Linux kernel" otherwise I guess it would be a tautology. AdrianTM 07:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always objected to the article confusing, in the popular way, "Linux" with the several operating systems that use it. Where something like Windows has a single, coordinated release by one company, and even if we accept that general-purpose distributions are sufficiently similar, the various operating systems that use Linux, mentioned in the article as for embedded and supercomputer use, for example, are so different that the similarity is Linux kernel. Just a couple of months ago, the introduction said
 * In its narrowest sense, the term Linux refers to the Linux kernel, but it is commonly used to describe complete Unix-like operating systems (also known as GNU/Linux) based atop it combined with libraries and tools from the GNU Project. Most broadly, a Linux distribution bundles large quantities of application software with the core system, and provides more user-friendly installation and upgrades.

I have in the past proposed
 * Strictly, the name Linux refers only to the Linux kernel, but it is often used to describe entire Unix-like operating systems (also known as GNU/Linux) that are based on the Linux kernel and libraries and tools from the GNU Project. Compilations of software that are based on these components, called Linux distributions, typically bundle large quantities of software, such as software development tools, databases, web servers like Apache, desktop environments like GNOME and KDE, and office suites like OpenOffice.org.

Right now, the article is misleading if not downright false, and covers up what makes free software development unique and in the introduction says nothing about the bundling of software into distributions. -- Centrx 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I like Centrx's second paragraph, it explains both veiws about what "Linux" means. --Bsmntbombdood 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think either version quoted by Centrx would be fine. The old version of the introduction had been stable for a long time and tried to clarify these distinctions. Recently, however, some people came in and decided that prominently explaining these issues was pointless verbiage and needed to be removed.  For my part, I tend to think that if you're going to write an article about "foo", the most important thing to do is to explain what "foo" is and what it isn't, especially if the same term is used for multiple things.  —Steven G. Johnson 21:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The current text, while not perfect, is succinct and does most of the work. This article used to be an appalling mess because of the lengths people would go to to point out caveats and edge cases, supposedly for the benefit of clarity but achieving the opposite. The use of the term "desktop environments such as GNOME or KDE" is a prime example: at one point, this phrase was used about six times during the article. If the article as a whole explains the topic, then individual parts of it may offer a less complete description for the sake of readability.
 * In short, the problem with Centrx's version is that it needlessly fluffs up the intro for the supposed purpose of pacifying random readers who need to see their favourite Free Software element featured prominently in the Linux article. It assumes that all paragraphs after the second are merely elaborations on the intro. Such articles are top-heavy, packed with wordy clauses and prone to degenerating into lists of links. The current article as a whole is not misleading or outright false. The introduction does not fully explain the situation, but it is there to provide an *introduction* to the topic, not a *summary*. Chris Cunningham 23:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think the "also known as" part is gross too, but failure to mention GNU at all in the intro brings forth tremendous rage from some parties. If there's consensus that the clause in parentheses should be removed I'd be happy to get rid of it and leave GNU until the History section. Chris Cunningham 23:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be removed. An "also know as"-part in the first sentence is common, often even for obscure names. One example is birthnames in biography articles. Readers who are not interested will simply skip it. "Gnu/Linux" is a minority term, but it is still used many (notable) places: Debian Gnu/Linux for example. Zarniwoot 14:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is is that Linux isn't also known as GNU/Linux. They are two different things that should not be confused with each other. --Bsmntbombdood 22:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My question is: Is Linux (not the kernel) one operating system or a common name for several related operating systems? If it's the last one (which I'm leaning to) the lead needs an update. If so, I think it can be done without getting bugged into definitions and details (but yes, we should be concerned about that). Zarniwoot 01:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's in exactly the same camp as "Mac OS X", "Microsoft Windows", "Unix" etc here. All operating systems have different branches and offshoots. It is needlessly confusing to make this distinction in the introduction. Chris Cunningham 07:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not. Windows and Mac OS have coordinated releases by a single organization that controls everything about the software. That is totally different from Linux. You can't even make an offshoot of Mac OS or Windows, whereas with Linux there are thousands. Unix, likewise, is an operating system released by AT&T with distinct updates and releases, and in its broad sense is somewhat equated with "Unix-like systems". What are you talking about? -- Centrx 16:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is not much of a discussion, in my humble opinion.

-- This image explains why Linux distributions are called "GNU/Linux"; At the same time it explains why it's not GNU/BSD/etc./Linux. -- Daniel N. Andersen, too lazy to log in.
 * The image doesn't explan anything, it makes a claim (at least one regarding this issue) using one point of view, also it's not complete it ignores things that were taken from BSD. I still support my idea to call the system GNUBSDL (and maybe use percentage, something like: GNU23%BSD5%L70% that will be very describing, since that's what we want, descriptive names). -- AdrianTM 03:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I still can't see much of a discussion, as the Linux kernel clearly was written for the GNU system. though it may not have been completely intentional to begin with. -- DNA, still too fat and lazy
 * So, in other words, the Linux kernel was not intentionally written for GNU, does not require GNU, and does essentially require parts that are not from GNU? —Centrx→talk 04:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What really needs to happen is for Wikipedians to understand that what they would normally think is "Linux" is actually the GNU/Linux system. To say "GNU/Linux" as opposed to merely "Linux" is not an opinion, it is acknowledging historical circumstance and calling the complete system by its proper name.  Linux is just a kernel, whilst GNU was the project set forth to create an entire operating system.  The story has been told thousands of times before:  Linux is just a kernel.  Wikipedia should not be an advocate of the continued spreading of inaccurate information, especially when it is over a topic as important as the GNU/Linux operating system.  Thanks.  --GNUDylan
 * What really needs to happen is people to understand that things don't have "proper" names they have names that we want to give them, since there's no license request in GPL that asks people to keep the GNU name for software that uses GNU tools: GNU/Linux or GNU/etc nobody is forced to call Linux otherwise than they want. Common practice is to call it "Linux", some people want to call it GNU/Linux to credit the importance of GNU, that's perfectly fine by me, HOWEVER, that's not something that's requred from other people. So, you can call it GNU/Linux but you can't ask other people to call it the same way, it's a matter of liberty if you let me put it that way, and people that support freedom should understand this issue even better (so please stop trying to impose your opinions on other people). -- AdrianTM 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"All" versus "Most"
People keep editing the exact relationship between GNU and Linux, presumably to avoid offending some party which uses the Linux kernel but no GNU libraries or programs. I would like the next person who does so to come forward with an example of such an operating system. Currently, all that is happening is that the end result is woolier. Chris Cunningham 23:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the article says "Because all Linux distributions rely on libraries and tools from the GNU project", this makes it sound like it's not possible for there to be a Linux distro without GNU. It doesn't matter if no current Linux distributions don't use GNU, it certainly is possible. I would like the sentence to say either "Because all current Linux distributions rely..." or "Because most Linux distributions rely..." (without the italics, of course). --Bsmntbombdood 03:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's like saying "because all current humans breathe air". Future speculation is rarely good for WP articles. Chris Cunningham 07:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not like saying "all current humans breathe air", because air is necessary for humans to survive. GNU is certainly not required for Linux to survive. --Bsmntbombdood 18:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Humans could theoretically survive on liquid breathing. I don't imagine Linus is going to be switching to Intel's compiler any time soon. Regardless, the edit has been made. Chris Cunningham 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The compiler used to compile the Linux kernel is irrelevant to this discussion. It is not a basic part of the running operating system. It would not be a reason to change all the names to GNU/FreeBSD or GNU/AtheOS, and it would not be a reason to change the name of your operating system to Intel/Linux if Linux were tweaked to compile on the Intel compiler. -- Centrx 22:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not about offending people. It is about accurately describing what Linux actually is, explaining how the kernel, distributions, and included software are all related, rather than leading the reader to think that there exists some "Linux OS" that is made and released by a single organization, similar to Windows or Mac OS, with the reader thinking the only difference is that they release it for free, allow the source code to be viewed, and as a central clearinghouse accept user-contributed patches. The resulting description may not be as short and simple, but it is still necessary to describe the situation accurately.
 * It is not necessary to do all of this in the introduction. This article largely exists as a primer, and treats Linux as being more homogeneous than it is for the sake of allowing people a point of reference compared to what they already know. Chris Cunningham 07:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Heaven forbid that a reader be confronted with their own misconceptions. No, you're right: we should stick with the fiction that "Linux" is a monolithic operating system like Windows or MacOS, because reality is too complicated.  —Steven G. Johnson 04:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Heaven forbid people should have to read more than the opening paragraph of the article to get the full story. Please don't lose track of what we're arguing over here. Chris Cunningham 10:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, why should someone have to read the whole article in order to not get a false impression? One major purpose of the introduction is to give a good general overview by which a person can know, generally, what the subject is about, without reading the whole article. The reader should not be mislead in the introduction or required to read the whole article just to get true information. Are we to put a line at the end of the introduction that says "This introduction is partially false and may mislead you; you must read the entire article. -- Centrx 18:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you're unaware of quite how subtle a difference this is for most people. So subtle, in fact, that a heavily-edited article like this still struggles to frame it in an accurate and concise manner. In fact, given that Stevenj above uses the term "a monolithic operating system like Windows or MacOS" when neither of those terms refers to a monolithic operating system indicates that the distinction is so subtle that people only see it when they're looking for it.
 * Still, I definitely don't have a problem with this on an ideological basis, just on a style basis. I'd happily accept an edit which made the distinction clearer without turning the intro back into unreadable mush. Chris Cunningham 18:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You have still provided no good reasons to provide misleading information. How do you know what the reader wants? and if the reader does not want accurate information, why are they coming to an encyclopedia? What is wrong with the proposed paragraph, an analog of which used to be in the introduction? You initially said it was "needless", which is false because the current introduction is incorrect. You initially said it was "fluff", which means that it is more wordy or grammatically complex than it needs to be in order to convey the same information; so it would not be difficult to make it more succinct, where is the fluffiness? You also somehow divined the purpose of the paragraph as "pacifying" readers who would be "offended" by not seeing their favorite software mentioned. This argument is totally bogus. -- Centrx 22:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding examples: First, what is meant by the "GNU" in GNU/Linux is the software that is typically essential to running a normal system, which are the C library and basic command-line utilities. Using Linux without GNU is common in embedded devices, which use the smaller dietlibc or busybox, for example, as replacements for this fundamental software. They are also found in tiny "mini-distros". Note that it is irrelevant to this discussion whether a system simply has GNU-made software running on it, such as high-level applications like music playing software or graphics environments, which are not part of any "operating system". -- Centrx 03:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that busybox is descended from GNU code even if it isn't actually under the GNU banner itself. Anyway, look at the way the sentence is phrased: Stallman is not asking for Linux to be unilaterally renamed to "GNU/Linux", just those operating systems constructed from it with GNU code (which so happens to be all of them). Again, if there are actual examples of uses of a Linux-based OS where Richard Stallman is prepared to say "okay, no GNU there, just call it Linux" then this should be changed when references are produced. I am not aware of any such examples. Chris Cunningham 07:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Busybox is not under the GNU banner and it was originally written from scratch in 1996 by Bruce Perens. This is not so much about Richard Stallman or the name GNU/Linux as it is about accurately describing what Linux, the kernel, and distributions are. Here are a couple of examples of distributions and devices which do not have major GNU components and cannot accurately be called "GNU/Linux": CoyoteLinux (uClibc & busybox) and uClinux with uClibc used on at least a half-dozen systems. There are numerous others. Also, there are at least three alternative small libc's, one funded by Red Hat, and books detailing their use. -- Centrx 18:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Some more examples of Linux without GNU. None of which are for embeded platforms. Blueflops, which I use, and here are many more that don't have anything to do with GNU. --Bsmntbombdood 18:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You guys are going off onto a tangent. Stallman and the FSF do not request that such embedded GNU-free Linux-based systems be called GNU/Linux.   (See their FAQ.)  Their argument is restricted to the common distros like Red Hat, Gentoo, SuSE, etcetera etcetera which rely on the GNU components.  —Steven G. Johnson 04:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a good point, thanks. It's pretty clear after reading the FAQ that this section needs reworded. Chris Cunningham 10:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I propose we name such distributions GNU/BSD/Linux since they use BSD tools too. "GNUBSDL" for short AdrianTM 06:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

GCC
There is no value in providing both the initialism and the expansion when it's only referenced once. Everyone calls it GCC, so just call it GCC. It looks silly to have to provide the expansion when it's rarely used. Chris Cunningham 10:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While GCC is the much more commonly used name, GNU Compiler Collection is the full name and is still used. See Google search — "GNU Compiler Collection" -GCC — with 60,000 results for usage of "GNU Compiler Collection" without usage of "GCC". Note that in some cases "gcc" is used specifically to refer to running the command-line program. -- Centrx 18:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All very true, but all very irrelevant to this article and best left for the GCC article itself (which is conveniently linked for anyone who cares). Chris Cunningham 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is known by both names, why not just say both? --Bsmntbombdood 22:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Style. This is a big and complicated article. It does not need its word count artificially inflated by expanding all the initialisms. The article loses no value by not expanding GCC. Chris Cunningham 08:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If a style gets in the way of providing full and accurate information, then it is not good style and is irrelevant here. There is no good reason to exclude the full, accurate, and commonly used name "GNU Compiler Collection", which also distinguishes from the old name GCC: GNU C Compiler, and there is no good reason to exclude the most commonly used name "GCC". Also, I would not be surprised if, in a couple of months, GCC is referenced within that section so that the parenthetical initialism is added then anyway. -- Centrx 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If that's your best argument, I don't feel compelled to reverse my stance (as I did above). I don't believe that paragraph warrants much expansion comparing to, say, the usage section (which along with the desktop section is the only part of this article which still needs serious attention). I will continue to fight for a professional level of English in this article in spite of Wikipedia's tendency for articles to continually attract parentheses and irrelevant trivia best left to sub-articles. Chris Cunningham 00:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you think three-letter abbreviations constitutes a "professional level of English"? If your best argument is style, when others consider it in fact better style the other way, and when it is better to include more information when it is true and NPOV, then the page is going to have both. Your other arguments have been that it is "silly" and that it "artifically inflates word count" (It is one word, and no one is advocating "expanding all the initialisms" (emphasis added)) Why do you think five characters "(GCC)" constitutes so serious a problem when it adds true and NPOV information? -- Centrx 01:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For anyone who isn't convinced, Google returns _five million_ results for "International Business Machines". Number of times this expansion is warranted on Wikipedia: one. Chris Cunningham 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are 182 instances of "International Business Machines" on the English Wikipedia. One in the first 10 is a quote from a newspaper (Times) article where the full name is used. Why shouldn't the full name be used? -- Centrx 01:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should fully expand "GNU C Compiler" to "GNU is Not Unix C Compiler" and then that to "GNU is NOT Unix in Not Unix C Compiler". I just don't know were should we stop.... just like some people over here. -- AdrianTM 01:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a purposefully farcical expansion, and is never used except when referring to the acronym as acronym whereas "GNU Compiler Collection" is straightforwardly descriptive and is used to refer to it. -- Centrx 01:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Point is, some things are refered to by their acromyms, GCC is like that, if someone wants to read more about GCC there's an entire entry just for that. -- AdrianTM 01:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Three letters in parentheses is not much to read—or skip over. In order to have a professional level of English, the compiler collection should be refered to in its first instance by its full name. -- Centrx 02:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this is incorrect. The rule is that abbreviations must be expanded in the initial usage when they are being used for the sake of brevity - in GCC's case, the initialism is the most common usage. I don't see you arguing that International Business Machines must be expanded in the article's introduction. Chris Cunningham 16:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think maybe IBM should be expanded too, though reasons against this are that space is at a greater premium in the introduction, that these companies are in a tangential list of examples and are not the subjects of the sentence, and that IBM has been the name for more than fifty years. -- Centrx 04:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to chime in that writing "GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)" once in the article is useful since it makes the article easier to understand for people from outside of the free software world. Imagine you went to a Microsoft article and found a load of acronyms - useless. IBM is different because IBM is famous in the world. If you expand GCC, a microsoft user can say "Oh, a compiler", or "Oh, the GNU compiler", but expanding IBM will not spark any similar awareness. If you have to explain IBM, it is more likely to be useful if you say "IBM, the computer company". Gronky 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It currently reads, "GCC is the most commonly-used compiler family on Linux". it is not actually possible to fail to understand that this sentence refers to some compiler family by the name of GCC. Chris Cunningham 07:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiki
Is there any more fully developed general Linux wiki (in English) than the one at LinuxQuestions.org? - dcljr (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Some exist for individual distributions:
 * http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Main_Page
 * http://gentoo-wiki.com/Main_Page
 * There may be others... - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Core argument
There seems to be an edit war upon is between many editors over the use of 'the core' to describe the kernel.

Rather than switching between numerous different versions, how about we discuss it here?

The kernel is the core of any operating system. For example, in Windows XP the kernel is the part that does all the low level communication and without it nothing would run at all. The same is true for linux. Changing it to 'one important' or 'a' is pushing a POV that the kernel is not important and the fundamental item that operates the machine. -Localzuk (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I totaly agree, that's why I reverted. Kernel means "core", it's the core of OS no matter how you turn this issue around, it's not "one important" it's the *most* important part of an OS, however I prefer the "core element" since "most important" sounds like a POV while core is more descriptive of the function of kernel. -- AdrianTM 00:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The kernel is not simply important, it is essential, sine qua non; in all possible instantiations of Linux, everything depends on the kernel in order to work. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The kernel is just one of many necessary components in a Unix-like system. It goes in the middle when we draw an onion to represent an OS, so "core" is correct in that context, but not in the context of describing the history of an OS.  Development of this OS did not begin with the kernel.  Not by any stretch.  A boot loader is not simply important, it is essential.   To have a Unix-like system, a Standard C Library is not just important, it is essential.  The kernel is one among multiple essential components, and calling it "core" for the tangental reason of it's position in onion drawings carries misleading implications in this paragraph. Gronky 03:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Many things are important, however the kernel is the core. That's the best description. When you talk about an operating system nobody is interested in what boot loader you use (even if it's essential), the kernel type and version is the relevant piece of information. Essential are many things, take for example the BIOS, without that my computer would not work and the kernel would be useless, however when I talk about what OS I use I don't talk about BIOS. -- AdrianTM 03:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The operating system does not run atop the boot loader, and there are many different boot loaders that can be used to load Linux. There are, likewise, multiple C libraries that can be used with Linux, all of which are layers on top of the kernel. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is unwise to try and seperate the idea of this OS from the onion ring or layered diagrams that can be drawn as representations. They are drawn *from* the way the OS is built - so they are drawn with the kernel in the core as it is the central item that everything is run on top of.
 * True a bootloader is important, but no one bootloader is that central to Linux. The kernel is. You can't just remove it and swap in a random different non linux kernel and let it run. -Localzuk (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Being Unix-like, GNU/Linux is made of components with well-defined interfaces. The usual kernel (Linux) can indeed be swapped out and the FreeBSD kernel, or the NetBSD kernel can be used as a replacement (Debian has made distros with both, Gentoo has done this with the FreeBSD kernel).  The Hurd is yet another option, although it's not recommended since it's neither functionally complete or very stable right now.  To a programmer, the libraries are the important bit.  To someone who has to make a system, the compilers are the starting point.  To some others, onion diagrams are the most important.  The debated sentence does not have to choose which representation to favour, and that sentence is not about OS design.  Inserting an implication that the kernel is more important than all other components is not only factually debatable, more importantly, it is an unnecessary injection of one point of view. Gronky 12:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you, get any book about Operating Systems and read what it says about kernels, to modify the definition of a kernel to fit you POV is POV. -- AdrianTM 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But my suggestions was POVless. "a component" or "an important component" or "a core component" avoids noting whether it's your favourite or not, just as calling David Beckham "a" member of England football team, which is a fact, compared to calling him "the core" member of the team, which is POV. Gronky 18:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The correct analogy would be if taking David Beckham out of the team would mean that none of the other players could even walk onto the field, or if replacing David Beckham would all of a sudden make it the French football team. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also if you'd call him the captain of English team that would not be POV to make him more important that he already is, it would be the truth. -- AdrianTM 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Gronky 23:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Great argument. -- AdrianTM 23:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The argument was going nowhere, neither of us is making progress with the other. Gronky 09:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your argument of substituting components and the analogy were refuted. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Critisisms
This article is very biased. I'm not even going to ask that a critisisms section be added because what are the chances. I couldn't even get on the internet with linux it's that hard to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.46.167 (talk • contribs)


 * You don't have to ask for a criticism section to be added; you can add it yourself. But all information in Wikipedia, criticism or not, should be verifiable, which obviously means that you should avoid original research such as adding information on how you couldn't get Linux on the internet. Haakon 20:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm against that, especially if it's not spelled right. Moreover, introducing criticisms for the sake of criticisms is promoting POV. The fact that someone couldn't use or didn't like Linux is not relevant (and original research, as mentioned. However, please go ahead and correct if you find anywhere in the article something like "Linux is for everybody" or "Linux works perfectly on any machine" -- AdrianTM 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't make a criticisms section. Instead, like AdrianTM suggests, ensure that the article is accurate.  Criticism sections are bad for data organisation, and bad for Wikipedia's development model.  As a contributor, if I find a criticism about GNU/Linux's as a programming platform, do I note it on the "Programming on Linux" section or in the criticism section?  And as a reader, if I read the "Programming on Linux" section, or any other section, do I then also have to read the criticism section to ensure that I have gotten on the relevent information?
 * Also, from looking at past and existing criticism sections, they seem to attract low quality contributions and too often contradict other parts of the article (probably because the contributor hasn't read the article but just really wants to note their pet criticism, or because they don't want to stand up to the peer review which would be more likely if their claim was put beside the other claims about that part of the topic). Gronky 12:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I completly agree that criticism sections attract low quality contributions, I've notice that when someone requested a criticism section for Opera because there was one for Firefox, so I went to Firefox page to check it out and it looked awful. Criticism section are mostly distructive for the articles, if someone wants to correct something they can do that in the text there's no need for an additional category to insert their pet criticisms and original research -- AdrianTM 14:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that Wikipedia should pursue a standard format for every article on a similar subject. The articles for chemical elements, for example, all have the same structure - they begin with some history, then move on to applications and occurrence. Since we are talking about a major operating system and since Windows XP article has a whole section devoted to criticism, it should only be fair to add a criticism section to the Linux article. I understand that the addition of such a section would attract vandalism and low-quality additions, but all good articles do so. And no, I cannot start the Linux criticism section/article, because I am not knowledgable enough. Milen 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your argument looks like this: others articles are crap, why this one is not crap too, to follow the format. I don't tend to Windows page, I would remove Criticism from there too. Criticism = POV, POV it's against Wikipedia's policy: Neutral_point_of_view. For example, you can very well mention facts, such as "there are 360 Linux distributions" (or how many they are), however to get into "there are 360 Linux distribution and noobs are confused, this is a bad thing" that is POV. So, you are welcome to add relevant facts but please keep your opinions out of it. Also, you are welcome to remove any other opinions, positive or negative, about Linux but which are not relevant facts. -- AdrianTM 21:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC: Part of the second part
OK, I reworked the last few sections into one below based on an idea of making it more accessable to non-Linux users and making some sort of "usage"-like section. Comments/tweaks/criticisms welcome. RN 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Deployment
There are several ways Linux is installed on computers. The most common method of installing Linux is by booting from a CD that contains the installation program and installable software and then running the said installation software. It can also be installed via a thin client installation running directly from a LiveCD. These CDs can be burned from a downloaded ISO images, purchased alone, or obtained as part of a box set that may also include manuals and additional commercial software. Linux also comes preinstalled on servers and personal computers from vendors including Hewlett-Packard and Dell, although generally only for their business desktop line. On embedded devices Linux is typically held in the device's firmware and may or may not be consumer-accessible.

Linux provides several avenues for software development. While there are several compilers available of both commercial and free persuasions, GCC is by far the most commonly used compiler family on Linux with frontends for C, C++ and other programming languages. While GCC is not an integrated development environment (IDE), numerous IDEs exist such as KDevelop, Anjuta, NetBeans or Eclipse; the traditional editors Emacs and Vim also remain popular. Interpreters for Perl, Python and others are commonly installed in Linux Distributions as well.

Technical support for Linux is provided, often without cost, by commercial suppliers and by other Linux users, usually in online forums, newsgroups and mailing lists. Linux User Groups have traditionally been organised to provide local support for Linux. However, the business model of commercial suppliers is generally dependent on charging for support, especially for business users. Some companies offer a special business version of their distribution which adds proprietary support packages and tools to administer higher numbers of installations or do administrative tasks more easily.


 * I assume you've had a good look at Linux distribution. I think your section wants or similar at the top, and a less vague heading would be "deployment" rather than "usage". - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Low cost computer
In connection with a separate "Appropriate technology wiki," I've made an info page/how-to guide for those wanting a Low cost computer (including how to make use of old computers). Choosing an appropriate distribution of Linux is one of the issues. I thought that editors of this page might have the knowledge to help on this. Thanks --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 16:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Outdated adoption rates
The adoption figures seem to be from 2002. Are these the most recent available? The article also says 2.8pc of pc's in 2002 are were shipped with linux, which is not the same as the actual adoption.--Beau 08:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Market share and uptake
The paragraph:

''The Linux market is rapidly growing and is projected to exceed $35.7 billion by 2008. It is important to note that this figure represents only paid Linux shipments; since most Linux distributions are available for free download from the internet, the actual installed base is higher than may be indicated by this figure.''

...is incorrect. Why? Because someone either misread the attached article or they misinterpreted the 'findings' on purpose.

Either way, I have rectified such a misinterpretation. Orbitalwow 18:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Readded the section, if a reference is wrong remove the reference and replace it with template, don't remove a whole section because of a wrong reference. -- AdrianTM 19:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And it seems to be an accurate description of the source. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the attached 'article'? It clearly states Framingham, Mass.-based IDC said that overall revenue for servers, desktops, and packaged software running on Linux will reach $35.7 billion in the next four years.
 * That is the revenue generated by the equipment that is running Linux!!


 * You shouldn't try and overly commercialise Linux when it simply is not a universially commerical product.
 * I have once again rectified that section - to clarify it. Orbitalwow 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dab link to GNU unnecessary

 * Nobody searches for "Linux" when they mean "GNU". There's a link to GNU in the page, I think the dab link was there only to provide a POV. -- AdrianTM 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I perfectly agree that there is no need for such a note
 * at the top of Linux.
 * at the top of Linux.


 * Of course, GNU plays a big part of what Linux is about, and I don't mind calling the entire system GNU/Linux, but GNU is described/linked to in the appropriate place in the article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My views on this matter can be found in the history . :) &brvbar; Reisio 00:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are engaging in a silly revert war in here, with three reverts in less than 24 hours, and pointing to your revert war in the edit history as an argument does not help. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is indeed a "silly revert war", then I'm (obviously) not the only participant (not that it matters :p). Anyways, I point to the edit history because I see no need to repeat myself, it's all there for whom it may concern. &brvbar; Reisio 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked in the history, in no place I see my point addressed. People that get to Linux page they either search for "Linux" or "GNU/Linux", if they wanted to get to GNU they would type in the search directly "GNU". The dab link is there only to promote a POV, it doesn't have any practical reason to be there, and that's of course against the principle of Wikipedia -- AdrianTM 01:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean why would anyone type "Linux" or even "GNU/Linux" when they actually want info about "GNU"? -- AdrianTM 01:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am earnestly sorry for the state of your reading comprehension. &brvbar; Reisio 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any arguments, beside being sorry for me? -- AdrianTM 04:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also read your history explaination. You fail to explain how people typing in GNU/Linux would look for GNU. They won't, they would type GNU if that's what they are after. People who type in GNU/Linux will look for the operating system. As far as GNU is concerned, it is described in the article at the approrpiate place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The kernel is also described in the article. &brvbar; Reisio 10:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And.... you lost me. This is an article about Linux or GNU/Linux (depending how you preffer to call it) it has info both about GNU and Linux kernel, the point of a dab link is to provide an option for people who get to the article by mistake to go to the right page, Why would anyone looking for GNU would type "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" in search box instead of typing directly "GNU". Again, the purpose of a dab link is not to promote a point of view or to advertise projects/products. -- AdrianTM 13:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Reisio, you seem to be thinking that since GNU/Linux is redirecting here then that means that equal treatment should be given to both GNU and Linux in the disambig on top. And that if we don't do that, then somehow we ignore GNU's contributions to Linux distributions.

Look, nobody disagrees with GNU's contributions to Linux, and I don't mind calling the entire system GNU/Linux, but the disambig on top is not the right place to deal with that, that's not what disambig notes are for. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, there's actually a guideline for putting the GNU/Linux redirect dab up top. &brvbar; Reisio 22:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, per Disambiguation
 * Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up 'Joker', would they find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis?) When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate nor add a link to a disambiguation page.

and as we kept on saying all along, nobody would type in GNU/Linux expecting to see the page on GNU. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * More per Disambiguation:


 * "When a user searches for a particular term, she might expect a different article than what appears. Therefore, helpful links to any alternative articles with similar names are needed."


 * Since "GNU/Linux" redirects here and it's an incredibly popular term, it fits perfectly.


 * "nobody would type in GNU/Linux expecting to see the page on GNU"


 * By the same logic, why would they expect to see a page called "Linux"?
 * &brvbar; Reisio 09:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * People don't expect the page to be called either GNU/Linux or Linux, when they look up for information about Linux they type in the box either "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" and they are directed here, however if people are looking for GNU they will never type the "Linux" part of the name, they will just type "GNU" I think this is pretty resonable. If further down the road, reading this article they want to find info about GNU there is a link for that, however dab links should not be ads. -- AdrianTM 12:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not an ad, it's a guideline. READ omfgomfg potaters just read! :p  I'm going to fire your English teachers. :p &brvbar; Reisio 13:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We did read that. (And please use a more appropriate way of phrasing your arguments. Implying that people disagee with you because they are too dumb to read well is not a good strategy.)


 * It is highly unlikely people would type "GNU/Linux" to start with. They would type "GNU" if they search for "GNU", and they will type "Linux" if they search for "Linux". And they will type "GNU/Linux" (if at all) if they already know about the operating system made up of the GNU libraries and the Linux kernel. And if they don't know the exact relationship between the two, that is explained in the text.


 * In short, GNU/Linux does not mean "GNU" or "Linux". There is no way people can type "GNU/Linux" when looking for GNU. There is no confusion here. So the disambig is not necessary. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not have a strategy - I have no agenda. I'm too lazy to break down English text for someone as if they're a child, so instead I'll just point out how poor someone's reading comprehension is.


 * "It is highly unlikely people would type "GNU/Linux" to start with."


 * You must be completely out of touch with reality: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22GNU/Linux%22


 * &brvbar; Reisio 01:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate how you debate, please try not to attack persons, try to attack the arguments. Also, see here a comparison between GNU/Linux vs Linux search on Google: http://google.com/trends?q=GNU%2FLinux%2C+Linux&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all -- AdrianTM 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate how you debate - please try to read. :p And oh look!  A chart with no values on it, how convenient! :p &brvbar; Reisio 02:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are values only that so few people look for GNU/Linux that it looks like there's no data if you compare with "Linux". If you look here you'll see that there are some people searching for GNU/Linux, however they are few, they will show only if you compare the search with some gibberish. Anyway, that's not the point, the point is that nobody searches for GNU/Linux when they look for GNU page. -- AdrianTM 02:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to read the remaining part of my paragraph.
 * And they will type "GNU/Linux" (if at all) if they already know about the operating system made up of the GNU libraries and the Linux kernel. And if they don't know the exact relationship between the two, that is explained in the text. -- Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, exactly my point, better explained. -- AdrianTM 02:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To say that someone would type in "GNU/Linux" expecting to see "Linux" is devoid of logic. &brvbar; Reisio 02:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? -- AdrianTM 02:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ...because they typed in "GNU/Linux", not "Linux"... Why would they search for "GNU/Linux" if they expected the result to be "Linux". &brvbar; Reisio 06:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * People who type GNU/Linux in search (probably very few) want to get to a page about Operating System which this Linux page is about (they have no idea how the page is called since people use both names: "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" interchangeable when they talk about the OS)


 * However, if they want to go to GNU they would never type GNU/Linux in search field because there is no confusion between GNU/Linux and GNU Let me try one more time: the confusion is between Linux_kernel and GNU/Linux which both are called Linux by people (correctly or incorrectly) however there's no confusion between GNU and GNU/Linux since nobody calls GNU - GNU/Linux and nobody calls GNU/Linux - GNU (not even RMS) If you put the link to GNU you don't do it to eliminate a potential confusion, you do it only to advertise GNU project which is against the principles of Wikipedia. -- AdrianTM 08:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "People who type GNU/Linux in search (probably very few) want to get to a page about Operating System which this Linux page is about (they have no idea how the page is called since people use both names: "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" interchangeable when they talk about the OS)"
 * You just supported my argument. They use both names, that's why this fits perfectly into the guideline which says to have a dab.
 * "there's no confusion between GNU and GNU/Linux"
 * ...and I never said there is (there is, however, just not much :p).
 * &brvbar; Reisio 03:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Per the guidline, there should be a dab only when there is potential for confusion. There is no potential for confusion between GNU and GNU/Linux, as such, there should be no disambig. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and the dab text was for "GNU/Linux", not "GNU"...so what's your point? &brvbar; Reisio 04:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was pointing towards GNU. There is no need for it. Nobody would type GNU/Linux while searching for "GNU". Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess someone added it to the dab in case people got confused about '"GNU/Linux" redirects here.', which seems sensible enough. The template was using "GNU/Linux", however.  As for "Nobody would type GNU/Linux while searching for "GNU"", read like four or so lines up. &brvbar; Reisio 05:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So why would one put "GNU/Linux redirects here" on top of Linux? It does not disambiguate anything. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ...to quote myself from earlier in this very talk section:

More per Disambiguation:


 * "When a user searches for a particular term, she might expect a different article than what appears. Therefore, helpful links to any alternative articles with similar names are needed."

Since "GNU/Linux" redirects here and it's an incredibly popular term, it fits perfectly.
 * &brvbar; Reisio 06:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In order for the policy in that box to apply, a user typing in GNU/Linux needs to "expect a different article than what appears". Would you please clarify what the user may expect "which is different than what appears"? So far we agreed that it won't be GNU. Anything else? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

...because they typed in "GNU/Linux", not "Linux"... Why would they search for "GNU/Linux" if they expected the result to be "Linux".


 * &brvbar; Reisio 11:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody confuses "GNU/Linux" with "GNU", stop trolling if you don't have arguments. -- AdrianTM 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * &brvbar; Reisio 12:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Check this out. Now I understand what people are saying when they complain about GNU trolls. -- AdrianTM 14:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The policy you cite in the second box up from here does not apply as the user gets exactly what the user expects, and there is no confusion. If one types in GNU/Linux, that's what one gets, the page on GNU/Linux, but under the more popular name of Linux. And that's explained in the text, at the approrpiate place. There is no room for confusion. There is no need for disambiguation. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The whole point of putting disambig text at the top is so that things can be disambiguated without having to read the article. &brvbar; Reisio 12:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is to disambiguate, you don't do that when there is no ambiguity between the terms. GNU on top of the page would be just an ad. Stop trolling and justify this item: "ambiguity between GNU/Linux and GNU" if you think there is such thing. -- AdrianTM 14:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"there's no confusion between GNU and GNU/Linux"
 * ...and I never said there is &hellip;

&brvbar; Reisio 03:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * &brvbar; Reisio 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said that you said that. But in order to need a disambiguation link there's a need for an ambiguity. No ambiguity -- no dab link, pretty basic. -- AdrianTM 17:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To say that someone would type in "GNU/Linux" expecting to see "Linux" is devoid of logic. &brvbar; Reisio 02:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? -- AdrianTM 02:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ...because they typed in "GNU/Linux", not "Linux"... Why would they search for "GNU/Linux" if they expected the result to be "Linux". &brvbar; Reisio 06:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * &brvbar; Reisio 17:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no ambiguity between GNU/Linux and GNU. No ambiguity -- no disabiguity link. Stop pasting irrelevant stuff. Address this issue. -- AdrianTM 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"there's no confusion between GNU and GNU/Linux"
 * ...and I never said there is &hellip;

&brvbar; Reisio 03:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * &brvbar; Reisio 20:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "No ambiguity = no dab link." You are a troll. -- AdrianTM 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To say that someone would type in "GNU/Linux" expecting to see "Linux" is devoid of logic. &brvbar; Reisio 02:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? -- AdrianTM 02:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ...because they typed in "GNU/Linux", not "Linux"... Why would they search for "GNU/Linux" if they expected the result to be "Linux". &brvbar; Reisio 06:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * &brvbar; Reisio 07:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

People, that's enough reverting. The silly disambig is off the Linux page. I think we should move on. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna have breakfast. :) &brvbar; Reisio 09:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)