Talk:Linux/Archive 7

Merge with Linux kernel
I propose that we merge some of this article into the Linux kernel article, as some of this article pertains to an entire operating system and not the Linux kernel itself, or vice versa. Saying "all of its underlying source code is available to the general public for anyone to freely use, modify, and redistribute." is not universally applicable. Most GNU/Linux distributions contain non-free software, so that statement really only applies to the kernel, Linux, and not even in all cases (Ubuntu has a restricted Linux kernel, for instance). Also, calling it "Linux" is not correct on technical grounds, as Linux is only a kernel and not an entire operating systems. Without apps and other programs, what good is a kernel? A kernel without other programs doesn't do anything. The same can be said for GNU, but it can use several other kernels, so saying "Linux" is basically wrong.
 * Merging would make the article gargantuan and aimless. The idea here is to provide a general overview of the GNU/Linux OS, and the article is gradually being dragged in that direction. The idea of the kernel article is to describe a software kernel. That the licensing here isn't entirely clear is not a reason to merge the articles. Chris Cunningham 14:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that we should do the following things:  1.  Make an article for Linux, the kernel.  2.  Make an article for GNU.  3.  Establish a line between the two, or make a GNU/Linux article instead.
 * It sounds like you just don't like the current title of the article. However, it's the most widespread term for this particular operating system, and thus it is the proper title. --Yath 00:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first opinion (merging, modifying, etc). We cannot separately talk about the "Linux" operating system and the "Linux kernel", cause there is not an operating system labeled "Linux". "Linux" is just a kernel and nothing more. Wikipedia, which is the best free online encyclopedia should make clear of the meaning of such terms. An enclyclopedia should not care about which term is the most widespread used, but which term is the most correct.
 * An encyclopedia doesn't have opinions, it only uses the terms that people use the name things and it's definetely not normative. -- AdrianTM 21:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. An encyclopedia should not have opinions.  An encyclopedia should be historically accurate.  Saying "Linux" to refer to an entire operating system is a clear misrepresentation of history.

I feel that the article titled Linux should be about the kernel. At the top we could say if you are refering to the GNU/Linux operating system click here. Then have the article about the operating system (most of this article) called GNU/Linux. I fell that the GNU deserve credit for the work they have done on the operating system (like the c library, and such) should be reconized by naming the operating system article by the correct title. --Harrisonmetz 16:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "I fell that the GNU deserve credit for the work they have done on the operating system (like the c library, and such) should be reconized by naming the operating system article by the correct title." that's an opinion, Wikipedia is not here to push opinions, moreover your opinion is not shared by most of the people, most of the people call the OS simple "Linux" and when they refer to kernel they say "Linux kernel". -- AdrianTM 20:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that this page "Linux" should be redirected to GNU/Linux with a header at the top allowing the user to go to the linux kernel.--Herraotic 11:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A clear majority of users and commentators, including the original author of the kernel (and the FSF, before Stallman thought he was being upstaged), refer to the conglomerate OS as "Linux". If I started calling John Wayne "Crazy John Wayne" and didn't shut up about it for ten years, I still wouldn't be in any position to dictate what the article should be labelled as, no matter how concrete my claims to John Wayne being crazy were. Accepting the terminology used by a minority with a very clear-cut agenda is POV, end of story. Chris Cunningham 14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of accidentally getting immersed in this discussion, I'd just like to offer a couple comments. Linux is, without a doubt, the right name for this. I don't even believe the term GNU/Linux should be mentioned in the lead. When you get right down to it, GNU/Linux is not so much a name an attempt to recognize that what most people call Linux is a bundle of stuff rather than just the Linux kernel. Instead, I feel the article lead should mention the GNU contributions to the overall package in a more meaningful way, and perhaps the Linux and the GNU project section should be expanded. -- Steven Fisher 19:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a new article named GNU/Linux would'nt be so bad. It would make a lot of people happy, while giving others the ability to compare a GNU/Linux system to, say, a distro of Linux containing less GNU userland than, say, a Linux distro using GRUB and GNOME.
 * Dustin 06:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A new article doesn't make sense since there is no difference between what people in general call "Linux" and what GNU fans insist on calling "GNU/Linux", plus or minus GNOME and GRUB it is still called "Linux" or "GNU/Linux", there's no delimitation by the percentage of GNU code present in the OS. -- AdrianTM 07:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally only refer to a system using GNOME, GRUB, and any other GNU-related project as a critical part of the OS as GNU/Linux..I guess others do not feal the same way. Oh well :\
 * Dustin 15:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are free to call it however you want, that's part of your freedom, you just need to accept the freedom of other people to call it "incorrectly" especially when those people are kernel developers, Linux distributions, and most importantly, 99.99% of the people. -- AdrianTM 15:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

good article?
i know this failed as a Featured article, but i think it might be good enough as a Good article. what do others think? JoeSmack Talk 17:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's reasonably well-written now but the focus is still all wrong in the second half, which still reads like subtle advocacy. There is very little on the current use of Linux on servers or how it came to be adopted in this manner; nothing on the history of distros; still too much about how modern desktop distros match up to Windows. That said, since its failed FA attempt the article has been massively improved, so I dare say it'd succeed. Chris Cunningham 11:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above analysis :). I had a little proposal in the last archive, but I'm sure someone (else) can think of a better direction for the second half as well. RN 20:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also agree, the second half of the article is sort of random it has lots of headings and no direction. I think if the second half were re written it would be better.

Cities started in their downtown, that's the kernel. Name of city X should not change because someone built a housing area named RoyalHouses. Then an industrial area named TheEagle. If the GNU/Linux reasoning is followed, then the city X should be called X/RoyalHouses/TheEagle. This recent link might provide some light when seen through the eyes of the one who built the city's core. Energiza 06:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Energiza, your example is really unrelated. Sorry to rain on your parade, but the OS was not built around the kernel. Get the facts, and get them right. The kernel is not the downtown of your example. The proper example would be: Foundation X (say, the FSF, Stallman) dreams up a city where all the citizens will be happy and free, and plans to call it "Freedom City" (say, GNU). They carefully list all that has to be made (residential areas, public transport, sewers, communication...), and start to work on each and every detail. With time, they realize that their "city" lacks a proper Town Hall structure (kernel), something they had thought of, but were not able to achieve. Now a clever Finish student (say, Torvalds), writes a book about Town Hall Organization for Dummies, and hands it down freely. The fate wants that this student calls his book "Organizatrix", and that the name is catchy. Now, would you think that the proper name of the finished city should be "Freedom City" (GNU), or rather "Organizatrix" (Linux)? Clearly, the name "Linux" has caught on, and I do not opose to its use, for pragmatism, and for its metonymic value. But don't make false metaphores, and try to redo the history, please. Isilanes 09:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge Real time Linux
I found this article Real time Linux clinking on "random article". It's new, and it's an orphan (nothing links in to it). I don't know anything about Linux, so I don't know if it should be expanded or merged. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was originally linked from here but was orphaned on accounts of being a non-subject. If anything constructive can be drawn from it (quite possible a single line on the matter) it should be added and then the stub should be deleted. Chris Cunningham 09:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at it, there's nothing that can be used in this article. It'd be better merged with the linux kernel article. Chris Cunningham 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Increase Space For Server?
I dont understand what the to-do list means by that. Do they need server space donated??? Aceofspades 02:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It probably meant: Add more information about Linux usage on servers. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

'Criticism' section
Hello!

First of all, please know that I'm a Linux user, I'm writing these words using PCLinuxOS+KDE+Firefox and I like Linux. Nevertheless, I think that is time to get a Criticism section in this article; it's just fair (call it NPOV). Microsoft's, Internet Explorer's and Windows XP's have three whole articles and we haven't a single section for Linux's criticism.

Possible topics to be mentioned are:
 * Poor hardware support: although you can always blame the hardware manufacturer, it has been being a serious trouble for linux users.
 * Poor commercial software vendor support: many people want to or need use software that only available only for Windows or Macintosh. Professional tools, games or other utilities that the software vendor does not make available for Linux.
 * Poor usability for non-advanced users: it's quite true, although KDE (and possibly GNOME, I don't know) has achieved great improvements.
 * Informality, Non-commercial issues, or common Free software troubles: I don't really know how to call it, but since there's no private company behind most of its software, one can argue that there's no one can say if the software development is going to last or whatever. Moreover, many Linux programs lack important things that commercial software has, like software manual, for instance.
 * Kernel technical issues (stability, security, performance): I don't know what are they and I don't really think these issues are relevant, but someone else probably could say it more surely.

Regards, José San Martin 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can find good sources for these things then go ahead. Criticism sections need good sources. You don't sound like you have enough experience of the OS to make a compelling argument, to be honest, although I do agree that the desktop section at least really needs to be rewritten to give a better idea of the actual experience. Chris Cunningham 02:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, it should not be a 'section' as such. Instead criticisms should be worked into the article as a whole as per "it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." — Jimbo Wales.-Localzuk (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah amusing how almost all software articles have Criticism sections but not Linux
 * Those are really bad articles that violate Wikipedia policies. An encyclopedia is supposed to contain facts not opinions. -- AdrianTM 20:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (wow, I could swear that I had already posted an answer) I agree with AdrianTM when he say about objective, but don't be so radical. Criticisms may be also facts. Somehow and somewhere in this article we have to answer questions like "why Linux is not as widespread as Windows?" or "doesn't Linux have its issues, too?". Should we think about removing or reducing criticism section on other software?
 * Anyway, as criticism sections may be quite annoying, I do like Localzuk's idea about placing relevant criticisms in the right sections of this article. Besides discussing the necessity of more criticisms here, we have to discuss what criticisms are worth mentioning. Let's list two or three of the most relevant ones. José San Martin 01:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Make sure to tell the readers that the reason they can't play "that" media file is because of Legal Issues (in the US). RMS discusses how one can not legally play a DVD in GNU/Linux and its important for readers te know that Linux is not worse than windows, but laws that congressed has passed (perhaps from big company lobbiests) impead it. Harrisonmetz 03:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a bit of a discussion going on at Talk:Microsoft about this as well after someone put a merge tag on it and the criticism article. RN 03:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

some characteristics can be strengths or weakness depending on the user's needs or point of view. some may find it great to have a choice of GUIs. others may find it an unwanted complication. MS Windows offers more canned solutions for a bunch of common business needs, but *X let's you do pretty much whatever you want if you're willing to do the work. generally it seems to me that with *X we trade off some convenience and simplicity for flexibility. this is not necessarily a criticism, but it seems noteworthy to me. - ef

TCO section
I removed this - the full text was
 * The TCO (total cost of ownership) of varies from distribution to distribution. IBM analysts recently demonstrated that TCO of Linux is lower in some cases than Windows.

Which is one unreferenced sentence followed by another providing one POV on a controversial issue - (also, IBM analysists? That's like quoting Microsoft on the TCO of Windows...). Anyway, I'm really not sure if this is the appropriate article to get into a huge TCO debate... RN 21:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * TCO doesn't seem to apply to desktop users, it is usually used only for enterprise environment. -- AdrianTM 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That gives a (unrelated) passing idea of splitting this article into three sections - history, usage on a desktop, and enterprise... RN 21:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That would make sense since there is a big difference between home computing and enterprise needs, usage and adoption. -- AdrianTM 21:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A progressional merge with the Linux kernel
This is a progressive discussion to redirect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux to the GNU/Linux wikipedia page. Either header your post as Support, Object or Comment.

--Herraotic 11:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm strongly against, a kernel and an OS are two different things that need to be addressed in two separate articles. As for names people call Linux the OS and Linux kernel the kernel. (Linux vs. GNU/Linux naming is treated in a different article). My opinion is that pushing GNU/Linux name serves some interests and some ideology, Wikipedia is not here for that. The name, wrong or correct, is "Linux" that's what people call it. Also if you combine Linux with Linux kernel into a GNU/Linux page you'd ignore all the rest of the Linux kernel usage that doesn't have any connection with GNU, e.g.: kernel use in embeded devices. -- AdrianTM 12:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Havn't we been through this like a million billion times? Where's the discussion :)? RN 12:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently is not enough for some people. Check out the archive, most of it is GNU/Linux vs Linux discussion. -- AdrianTM 12:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, take a look through the archives. Also take a look at the wikipedia naming conventions where it says Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. (It actually says this about 3 times on the page). Linux is the name given to the OS by the majority of English speaking people. We should be naming it according to this and not the ideological views of a few specialists.-Localzuk (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The term "GNU/Linux" is not a presentation of pure ideological viewpoints. It demonstrates the the entire operating system is not just the kernel, Linux -- it is mostly the GNU system, with a few pieces added.  GNU is the principal piece of development in the full operating system:  GNU/Linux, or simply GNU.  The practice of calling an operating system by its kernel is extremely rare.  In fact,  I cannot find another operating system that is usually identified by its kernel.  Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize.  So, if you were to write an article about a certain type of vegetable (operating system), and you just knew that this vegetable was a mixture of two different things (GNU and Linux), and the correct name for this vegetable is Apple/Carrot, a mixture of an Apple and a Carrot.  But for some reason, people keep calling this vegetable a Carrot, even though you know that a Carrot is only a small part of this Apple/Carrot.  There are parts of other vegetables that contain the Apple fruit, like the Apple/Avocado (GNU/OpenSolaris or GNU/kBSD for instance),  Why should the Apple/Carrot be called anything but?  So, you see, it's not historically accurate to call GNU/Linux "Linux", because the entire operating system was not written by Linus Torvalds.  The whole thing wasn't even written by the GNU project, but the largest piece was.  That's why we call the operating system GNU, or GNU/Linux to be more technically precise.  Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize  The same errant principle can be applied to anything.  If the general population believed that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is to be called Amadeus Mozart-izzle, and to be labeled as a gangsta rapper, even though that's completely wrong, would Wikipedia keep that information?  I hope not!
 * People should learn to sign their posts, I propose to delete all the unsigned posts since this is a poll, you can't have a poll with random stuff inserted by random people (I could vote 10 times if I don't need to sign, right). -- AdrianTM 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You sound right, but in the end your answer is just an ad hominem against the opinion you answer to. Isilanes 18:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is the same argument I've heard over and over again. Quite simply, none of it matters because very little to no-one calls it "GNU/Linux" in real life - just look at any serious magazine article etc.. The reasons presented above are not practical or convincing to me and reek of just another developer who put too permissive of a license on its software and now flustered because someone didn't give it credit where the license didn't require any. RN 13:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ironically, you seem oblivious to the fact that one of the few restrictions that the GPL imposes is, actually, citation of authors. When a GPLed program is modified and redistributed, prominent notices of what is actually NEW (yours) are compulsory. You can not just ship your part and someone else's together, and imply or state that both are yours. Isilanes 18:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see below for why that reeking theory holds no water. Gronky 19:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This proposal is unclear. It looks like something I would support, but I'm not sure.  Maybe it should be restarted with a clearer wording.  What I support is moving the current "Linux" article to "GNU/Linux".  A similar proposal which I would support, is moving it to "GNU+Linux operating system".  A related proposal, which I think I just invented now, is to use "Linux" as the title (since some claim it is the correct name according to WP policy), and use "GNU/Linux" throughout the article (after explaining this in the intro paragraph). Gronky 13:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "just invented now" - If one looks through the article history they'll find this has been invented already. Many times, evidently. RN 14:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with RN point about "reek of just another developer who put too permissive of a license on its software and now flustered because someone didn't give it credit where the license didn't require any." although I would put it though on the side of liberty that the license gives to people (that even unabated GNU supporters fail to see). One is free to take any GPL code and use it in whatever they want and name it whatever they want, that's the freedom the license give to people that use it. For example I can get GNU code and make a "Adrianix" without changing anything to it, or changing only trivial things, if I get to build a Adrianix kernel that's even better, however that's not required -- I get to name my product, just as Linus chose to name his OS "Linux" and his kernel "Linux kernel". Now, if FSF wants to reclaim the name they can at any point get the Linux kernel code and rename it "GNU kernel" and release everything as "GNU OS", there's nothing stopping them to do so, however that's probably not going to change how people call OSes that use Linux kernel. -- AdrianTM 14:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If the theory of "another developer whose licence doesn't require credit, but he wish it did" was correct, Stallman could have proposed adding some such clause to the GNU GPL version three which he's currently writing. But he didn't.  Instead Stallman believes that people should be free to use whatever name they choose, but he repeatedly explains why he things "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux" is the best name to use, and he repeatedly asks people to use those names. Gronky 17:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are free to follow his request and call it that way, however you should realize that you can't impose on other people how to call things. Especially when we talk about products, for example companies call their OS: RedHat Linux not RedHat GNU/Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise not SUSE GNU/Linux Enterprise, "Ubuntu: Linux for human beings" (the only notable exception is Debian as far as I know). So please respect the freedom of other people and don't try to impose your POV on Wikipedia. -- AdrianTM 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm POV? You're POV! (Sorry, that's just a silly response to a silly accusation, lets get back to adult conversation now)  This article is not about a product from a company.  There are seperate articles for the products you're talking about, and if there is a name change suggestion that you disagree with there, you should contest it there.  During the GPLv3 process, the main proponent of the names "GNU/Linux" and "GNU+Linux" has reaffirmed his agreement with you (and me) that everyone's freedom to choose a name should not be restricted (such as by a software licence).  Back to the topic: there was a discussion about what to call the article, and what name(s) to use in the article, about the operating system made by combining GNU and Linux.  One fantastic, IMO, suggestion was GNU/Linux (the "Linux" variant of the GNU OS).  Gronky 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's my POV, but that doesn't matter what matters is that is the POV of the majority of people and the majority of companies involved in Linux stuff. If you want an adult conversation start by being one. -- AdrianTM 21:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think people are missing the point here. The OS is generally referred to as Linux, and using current Wikipedia policy (as outlined earlier) the article should reflect this name. If you have problems with this, go and try and get the policy changed.-Localzuk (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * From the policy summary: "reasonable minimum of ambiguity" - now ask people if Linus Torvalds wrote Linux. The majory (and the majority of English speakers) will say yes, thus demonstrating that they are totally confused by ambiguity.  For someone publishing a magazine or a book or a product, where catching people's interest is more important than being accurate or unambiguous, "Linux" will often be used.  That's not the goal of Wikipedia, and the policy reflects this.  A recognisable name which solves the ambiguity problem is GNU+Linux or GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux operating system.  Further, Wikipedia has a policy of Be precise when necessary.  To shorten the back-and-fourth, I will highlight the Rationale from that page that "If a word or phrase is ambiguous, and an article concerns only one of the meanings of that word or phrase, it should usually be titled with something more precise than just that word".  There is also a section on conflicts, which suggests: "If a consensus is impossible to reach on precision, go with the rule of thumb, and use the more popular phrase."  But, in light of all that and the above, is it really impossible to reach a consensus that "Linux" on it's own is ambiguous?  If yous agree that Linux on it's own is ambiguous, then lets find something less ambiguous.  It doesn't have to be "GNU/Linux". Gronky 20:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant what people respond to that question, Linus didn't even write the majority of the Linux kernel, what we can do is set the things straight in this article (and actually the article does a very good job presenting the history and the contributions). The only disabiguation that I accept is Linux OS vs. Linux kernel (there's no need to add GNU/BSD/KDE/etc to the name)-- AdrianTM 21:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody suggested adding BSD or KDE to the name. Again, please stay on topic.  The article is about the GNU operating system.  More precisely, it is about a variant of the GNU operating system that uses Linux as its kernel (instead of Hurd, which isn't very good).  If this article was a commercial product, I could see your reasoning for using the word "Linux", but this is an encyclopedia.  The operating system is GNU (plus Linux).  Calling it "Linux" is absurd (for an encyclopedia). Gronky 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We are staying on topic. The very idea that Linux is a "GNU operating system" because it uses GNU components is disputable; you might as well say Ubuntu was a variant of the X Window System which uses Linux as its kernel. Any pretence that GNU/Linux is the normative term for the operating system comes about entirely due to the insistence of said definition by the FSF. As a) the FSF aren't in any position to dictate what anyone else calls the bundle, b) the majority of the bundle's users have chosen to ignore the FSF's proclamation, and c) in the absence of any body which can claim to have an official definition for operating system naming conventions, the most common answer is the one which will be used. Chris Cunningham 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We all agree on (a). You, me, Stallman, FSF, everyone.  Nobody here is proposing to dictate what the OS is called, and nobody in FSF is trying to dictate what it is called.  This has been explained already in this thread.  About (b), no one disagrees that "Linux" is the most common name used for the OS.  About (c), you're not in a position to make that decision on your own.  Wikipedia has policies, they are discussed above in this thread.
 * The OS is a GNU OS because it was the GNU project that made an operating system exist and it was the GNU project which was the main contributor of code to make the operating system exist. The X Window System exists because a group wanted a windowing system.  Linux exists because a Finnish student wanted to write a kernel.  TeX exists because a guy wanted a typesetting system.  The OS exists because the GNU project set out in 1983 to make an OS.  They made a list of what needed to be written and they started writing them and gathering others to help.  If not for the GNU project, there would not have been an OS, and if not for the GNU software packages, there would not have been an OS.  Before the last planned piece was complete, it became usable by substituting in a third-party kernel.  A confusion at the time caused people to call the whole OS the same name as the kernel.  "Linux" also became a powerful marketing buzzword, but it's not good enough for an encyclopedia. Gronky 15:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Not good enough"? There is no normative answer to the question. Repeating yourself doesn't change this. As there is no "right" answer, the next-best thing is chosen, which is the consensus answer. And the consensus overwhelmingly says that GNU + Linux + X + random bits of BSD + icky proprietary Nvidia drivers = "Linux". Please stop repeating this argument, the talk page on here is really getting impossibly lame. Unless you can point to an actual authority who can state scientifically that the OS should be named "GNU/Linux" then any arguments to that effect are merely POV. Chris Cunningham 15:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "If not for the GNU project, there would not have been an OS" -- you need to make a difference between names and attribution or merit there are separate things. Names don't always reflect that, there's no rule anywhere that names should reflect who, what, how and when contributed to a project. Moreover, there's no such thing as a correct name, any linguist would tell you so, there are just words that are used by the majority of people to name things, what matters here is what people use, not what is "correct" to use. Virtually nobody else then FSF uses "GNU/Linux", please came back and edit Wikipedia entry when the rest of the people are convinced by FSF to use GNU/Linux to name the OS, but don't use Wikipedia to convince people (that's what is against the NPOV principle of Wikipedia). -- AdrianTM 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A few criticisms
Don't take these as criticisms of Linux, just of the article. That's all I've got right now. -- 70.71.224.200 21:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC) I've gone ahead and done both. I wasn't sure either change would be uncontroversial. I guess we'll just see. -- Steven Fisher 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The Linus picture is large. Obnoxiously large. One might even say offensively and obnoxiously large.
 * You can change it yourself to be as big as you deem fit. -- AdrianTM 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I find the sentence "GCC is by far the most commonly used compiler family on Linux" to be vaguely weaselly, even if it is true. At a minimum, there needs to be a citation here.
 * That's probably common knowledge but it's a good idea to have quotes for any claims, you can insert a template like  -- AdrianTM 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. I changed that to "standard compiler on Linux" since that seems more apropriate and that's the info on GCC article too. Hope that's OK. -- AdrianTM 18:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've further changed it a bit to define GCC. I hope that's okay. I realize GCC is a more common name anyway, so I didn't do this without reservation. Feel free to change it back if it offends you. -- Steven Fisher 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a tad worrying that this is the most constructive contribution to the article itself that the talk page has produced in weeks... :) Chris Cunningham 23:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. This talk page is why I was afraid to just make the changes to the article. -- Steven Fisher 06:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You should add in this article that wireless networking is a chore to get working, especially with the zd1211 chip found in a lot of wireless dongs. 81.153.125.192 15:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't promote original research on Wikipedia articles, also it's useful to sign in when you add comments in Talk pages, otherwise people will pretty much consider it spam. -- AdrianTM 17:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)