Talk:List of Linux distributions/Archive 1

Definition list
This article is hand cranking definition lists, rather than just using the available definition lists. I edited the Special-purpose distributions section to how it should be... But do not have the time to do the rest. See Help:List for more info. wangi 12:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You can use something like this: *cat inputfile | sed -e "s/'''//g" | sed -e 's/^*/;/g' > outfile  Any_Key

RPM-based versus Red Hat Enterprise Linux-based
to be consistent (the Debian and Gentoo-based distributions are just that. They are not DPKG or Portage-base), I am splitting off RHEL-based as a separate category and move the relevant of the RPM-based distributions to RHEL-based, and linking to the RHEL clones article. Riaanvn 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed Asterisk@home to trixbox
Asterisk@home changed their name to trixbox a few months ago. I edited it to say the new name. 24.45.161.236 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge and Cleanup
It has already been stated at the top of the article that it needs some cleanup, and also in the foreword it says this article should be merged with Linux_distribution, so is anyone planning on taking care of this, otherwise I would be more than happy to take care of it. netkid91 01:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Thanks for taking this on.  One suggestion: Take what's good in the section titled "Choosing a Linux distribution" on the Linux distribution article and move it to this article. --65.19.87.53 04:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was acutally planning on doing the merge the other way around, List of Linux Disto's -> Linux Distribution, I'll go ahead and do some cleanup while I'm at it. Sorry for taking so long to reply, been kind of busy, I'll make a page in my user sandbox and get started, expect to see a update soon netkid91 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Edit: See my current edits on My Temp Workspace - Edited 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I am starting to wonder wether this page really should be merged with Linux Distribution or Comparison_of_Linux_distributions and just give it a makeover. I made a nice little template that I can add to Template:Distro_Item, so no big deal. netkid91 03:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this article should be merged with the Linux distribution one, if anything I think that the "List of" article and the "Comparison of" article would be the logical choices for a merge -- it seems like it would be pretty easy to take the "comparison" content and add it to the list. But I don't think that people who want to read an article about the concept of a "distribution" really want to have a gigantic long list of every Linux distribution appended to the bottom of the article. The list, IMO, is definitely better kept separate. Maybe the "introduction" section (the area before the ToC) in the List article should get moved somewhere else, but I think it's misguided to put the list into some other article. Therefore I guess I'm against the merge as currently proposed, but I would strongly support moving the 'comparison' content into the list article. Kadin2048 23:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I like your idea Kadin, I will have to do so. I agree, this place needs to stay seperate from the other two, so basically we just need to copy some content over to this article, move the into paragraph, do some cleanup and redesign the page using my tempalte(visit it's talk page to suggest things to add to it). netkid91 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a merge. But I do think the introductory paragraphs are pointless because they belong in Comparison of Linux distributions if anything. This article should just be kept as an organized list with short descriptions of each distro. I'm going to be bold and change the introduction to something short but sweet. Sether 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) I've just been bold in chopping the intro back, and I think it's improved. However the whole categorisation issue is fraught - several distros could go under multiple headings. Many of the descriptions *do* read like advts, but with some work they could be brought under control - I think its handy to have such a descriptive take on each as opposed to the technical approach of the Comparison_of_Linux_distributions.


 * I don't know enough about this to do it myself but the Xandros entry under partially commercial needs to be cleaned up. Specifically:  "(based on the defunct Corel Linux)"  and  "Based on Debian."  It can't be based on both.  Which is it?  --arthurbarnhouse 10:09 August the 29th, 2006

Most of the information is redundant with Comparison of Linux distributions. I think it should be merged.Mike92591 19:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this should be submitted to the Cleanup Taskforce. Does anyone else agree? Ceros 14:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the cleanup tag has been posted since November 2005, I'm going ahead and submitting this to the Cleanup Taskforce. Ceros 03:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Commercial vs. Free
Vector Linux and MEPIS both offer fully-functional products free of charge on public mirrors to which they link on their respective websites, with some additional software available in paid versions. Novell and SUSE engage in an arguably similar practice but present the free and paid distributions as different products rather than versions, where paying customers are buying a higher expectation of software maturity and entering into a client-vendor relationship. Linspire and Linux XP stand out in offering no products free of charge. Use of the term "free" in the context of Linux is potentially very inflammatory, and the use of "partially commercial" is begging for questionable categorizations.


 * "commercial: A money making endeavor that involves a corporation or other formalized group of workers and management working toward the production of goods or services to participate in an economy."
 * So commercial is not the same as proprietary. Free is the opposite of proprietary. Commercial can be both and both can be non-commercial. -- mms 02:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't SUSE Slackware based?
It says in the SUSE article that it is, but here it isn't listed as such. Anyone? -smb

I'm pretty sure that it isn't and has never been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE_Linux Says right there that it was a translation of Slackware


 * While it appears they originally used Slackware as their base, it is no longer similar to Slackware. "Based on" here means what the current distribution is based on; SuSE is much more similar to Red Hat and uses the RPM package manager. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

kubuntu ?
i was going through the list of distros based on debian and kubuntu was not listed there.
 * Is Kubuntu significantly different enough from Ubuntu that it warrants a separate entry? Personally, I don't think so. Oh. It is listed now under Ubuntu anyway. :) vLaDsINgEr 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This article reads like an advertisement?
""This article reads like an advertisement. Please clean it up to conform to a Category:Wikipedia style guidelines of quality, and to make it neutral in tone.""

This tag has been added now. Sometimes, I sometimes feel like so, because the way of some parts of explanation is too long. This page should be only a list of distributions with simple description of each. I think long and extra exlpanations should go to individual pages of their distributions. User-green 11:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree definitions just too long, use of Okkams razor may help. Only key features have to be mentioned, not the lists of subdistributions. eg. Ubuntu. The problem is what feature is "key" enought : Free/Commertial, package system, intended user auditory. ect.Any_Key 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

While I am cleaning the article and merging it with Linux Distribution I will keep this in mind. netkid91 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with detailed descriptions? 76.183.213.20 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an expert could help with this issue (the "expert" template)? 76.183.213.20 00:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I will add the "expert" template. 76.183.213.20 00:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think it was the best idea anyway, I just thought that a Linux expert could help with the cleanup. 76.183.213.20 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that I originally suggested the “expert” template, but I now think that was a mistake (I am a new user). 76.183.213.20 02:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the "expert" template because it was not discussed on this page. 76.183.213.20 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect error
There is an error with the page redirect that puts the “expert|linux article” tag when you go to the redirect page “List of Linux distros” (case-sensitive), but when you go directly to the page “List of Linux distributions” (possibly case-sensitive) the tag is gone; one fix that I have found is to click “article” near the top of the page. 76.183.213.20 01:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like it has been fixed now. 76.183.213.20 20:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fictional distros
I think this section should only have fictional distros that have actually been documented outside of Wikipedia, and not just any silly idea some nerd wants to add to Wikipedia. So, I propose we remove Clux, PaperOS, and Ferkel. I didn't mention DarkOPS Omega because I actually found a mention of someone looking for it on an Ubuntu forum. Although, this person did hear about it by reading this page, so maybe it should be removed too. Also CLUX should definitely be removed as Clux is a real thing. Computational Linux/Unix CLUster. Of course Jesux and Yellow Hat should remain as those are genuine Linux hoaxes. Dan0 00 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, since no one seems to disagree, I'll go ahead and do it. Dan0 00 14:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Lesbian GNU/Linux" has got to go. 76.183.213.20 06:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anyone object to me removing "Lesbian GNU/Linux" from "Fictional distributions"? 76.183.213.20 06:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, since no one seems to disagree, I'll go ahead and do it. 76.183.213.20 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve clarity
I would like to make some changes. But before I begin I want to be sure that it is not immediately reverted and thus all the work was for nothing. So here are some suggestions I would like to implement. What do you think about this:


 * the short information next to each distribution should be removed in this list (it can be looked up in the corresponding distri-article if wanted)
 * the distributions should not primarily be listed by alphabet but by relevance (according to distrowatch.com and google entries)
 * a tree should be visible to see which is based on which; if a distri was based on another in the past than now it should be listed according to the current base and the information about past can be put in a footnote

Advantage: It can be seen at once which distributions are most closely related to each other. This makes it easier to choose and to be sure that the chosen distro is practically identical to several other popular distros (important if the chosen distribution is discontinued or seldom updated).

Further I would like to mark each distro with a little K, G, or X to indicate that the default desktop is KDE, GNOME, or Xfce. Der Eberswalder 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I do it then. Der Eberswalder 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Please don't do this I think it is a very bad idea, and would only serve to perpetrate popularity over content.


 * The short information deleted is only good if there is a wikipedia article to link to.
 * distrowatch and google entries are both not good indicators to anything, and if based on these factors would only serve as ads for the most popular distros according to distrowatch and Google entries. Even Distrowatch admits that it's list is only for entertainment proposes. Distrowatch is NOT a source of reference.
 * I am not sure what you are trying to convey with your tree concept, please explain further before going further with your idea.

I suggest you incorporate your idea into a new page and leave this page in the current state of being listed in alphabetical order. Ravtux 02:34, 21 May 2007

Indication for default desktop environment of each distro
I think it is impractical to make a letter after each distro to indicate GNOME, KDE, Xfce, IceWM, Fluxbox, Enlightenment or any other desktop. Colors would be nice. I will group distros with same desktop environment together and add colors later if there is no opposition. --Der Eberswalder 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I use no indication for GNOME, bold for KDE, and italic for all others. --Der Eberswalder 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Methodically describing characteristics should be kept only on Comparison of Linux distributions.--Chealer 22:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. 76.183.213.20 03:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If this is a comparison of Linux distributions, then add the default desktop environment. If this is simply a list of distributions, then omit default desktop environment. I'll also point out that some distros have no default desktop environment.

aurora
Seeing as there is already a wikipedia entry on it, I added Aurora_SPARC_Linux to the list under Fedora. I could have sworn I did this before.--D3matt 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

cleanup
I removed the cleanup tag because it looks OK IMHO. If anyone wants to add it back of course they can. RJFJR 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there are two Others categories... That would be nice to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.201.203 (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Live CDs category?
Should live CDs have their own category? Their use is usually different from an installed distro. It would break the categorization by package format more, but live CDs are their own kind of specialist distro. Jman 18:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. The most imporatant decision is the packaging system, then the distribution name and last the live CD capability, which can be mentioned next to the distribution itself. Jaalto 2005-10-15.


 * Issue is, not all distro's include a Live CD and Full install. I think the GP was talking about ditro's such as Knoppix. netkid91 03:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Live cds should have their own categories so that someone looking for Live CDs can have easy access to the varieties available and simultaneosly go through the variety of other distros available to him.. Pratikarun 12:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. 64.180.234.102 07:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that Live CD's should be just mentioned as a feature. any Live CD can be installed to a harddrive and booted just as one would a traditionally installable distribution. gaurdro 23:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:Live CD now exists. Maybe it should just be a subcategory of Category:Linux distributions, rather than it's own category. List of LiveDistros also exists as an article. By the way, a Live CD is booted from the CD, and not installed to a harddrive. --Unixguy 15:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

external link cleanup
I've removed the linux review link as it doesn't correlate to this particular page but may be better suited to a general linux informative page? both the tag and the link are both still there but they've been commented out. Gaurdro (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of ~25 line items including AFD-merged article
In Nov 2007 there was an edit that removed about 25 items in one swoop (the link is to the DIFF). The edit summary provided was "Removing distributions that are only external links". I tend to agree with this edit as consistent with WP:NOT, but I wanted to put the question to the editorial group here as to whether this particular edit meets general consensus. I am prompted to ask because the redirect target for EHUX in this list-article was eliminated as part of the edit; EHUX was merged into this article and the title redirected as part of an AFD action in June 2007.

At this time, EHUX is tagged for WP:PROD-deletion based on the target missing from this article; I will be taking it to WP:RFD momentarily and hope to address the larger question of "contingent deletion" which this case illustrates - i.e. an AFD action is taken that is intended to retain some article content through merger, but the content is later deleted as an editorial decision at the target article, effectively leading to an ultimate deletion outcome for the AFD. This gets into the thorny region of whether merged content should be treated differently from directly written content ... which leads to creep and I don't really want to go there, but I'll stick my toe in to test the waters quicksand.

Thanks for considering the question of whether the edit labeled as "removing distributions that are only external links" meets with consensus of editors currently paying attention to this article. Having that answer would be helpful.

Regards User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

where to put SliTaz GNU/Linux?
I found out about SliTaz yesterday, and love it. I just created a Wikipedia page about it, and wanted to add it to this page ... but i don't know under which category to place it. It was apparently built from scratch and is not based on a previous distro. If anyone can figure out how to get it on this page, please do. It's a terrific Linux distro.

-Monz (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, i didn't see the "Others" category before :) . I've put SliTaz there; if anyone knows more feel free to move it, fix it, etc.

-68.8.18.44 (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Fedora be under Fedora-based?
This page has Fedora being put under other when there is a Fedora-base! Why is that? Fedora uses the RPM base and has the same base as its self.

Phat Linux
I'm not knowledgeable enough to write on it myself, but would love to see inclusion of PhatLinux, an actual [former?] distro that booted from within Windows. (I first tried Linux in this version, years ago.) If PhatLinux is now an extinct or unsupported distro, then, perhaps, it, and other extinct or unsupported distros could be grouped together in a separate List? www.PhatLinux.com seems no longer to be "out there." Some initial info from 2000 on Phat (and other "boot-from-within-Windows" distros) may be found at http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/print/1458/   Xenophon777 (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Inactive or discontinued distributions
Perhaps the entries could be in separate page "Histrorical Linux distributions (discontinued)" for those now ceased Jaalto 2005-11-24


 * Wikipedia is not a website for people to come and see a list of things to choose from and pick the one they think is best - it's an encyclopedia. This is a list of Linux distributions that are notable enough to be encyclopedic, not a list of distributions that are recommended.  Inactive and discontinued stays. &brvbar; Reisio 16:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your opinion that we should remove articles on inactive or discontinued distributions. This page is NOT a HOWTO for Linux beginners. This is an encyclopedia, so that historical mentionning should be much more important for readers. If you interested on current affairs on Linux distributions, you had better create your own pages outside Wikipedia and then link them here for readers' reference. User-green 08:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree they should remain on the list and articles should remain, but I also agree they should be put in a seperate section. I'll think about doing it durning cleanup netkid91 02:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Also included Yggdrassil. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the best thing to do would just be to put a note in their description? Something semi-standardized, so that it would be easy for a person who was looking over the list to pick out the discontinued ones? I think just writing (Discontinued) at the beginning of the description would suffice. Kadin2048 23:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think they would have done this from the start Kadin, apparently I'm mistaken. It is quite important that it is noted which are active and which are discontinued distro's. Drakuun 12:10, 15 September 2007 (CET)

"Tiger Linux"
IPs 217.202.172.29, 217.201.144.29 and 217.201.23.208 have added "Tiger Linux" to the list multiple times. I'm concerned about notability as well as neutrality (all edits have used phrases and words like "easy-to-use", "reliable", et cetera). Is this a legitimate distribution or shameless advertising? Is it notable enough to be included in the list or can it be deleted on sight?

I've deleted their edits at least twice, but since the edits are so persistent I've taken the neutral route this time and simply edited the section to be more neutral until I can get a definite answer from a third party. ZappyGun (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the articles have been deleted and the packaging system salted, so its probably not a legitimate distribution. Salahx (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the only external link on the page. A search for "Tiger Linux" turns up 2,090 English pages as of 2008-11-24. There is also a unix intrusion detection tool called 'tiger'. This is currently not notable enough and should be continually removed. If there is reliable, third party review, then the distro should have its own page, with enough references there. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, add MOPSLinux to slackware-base distributions.
mopslinux.org 195.122.231.182 (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

merge with list of Ubuntu distributions
There's a note in the page about making the merge. Since no one had created a discussion item, here it is. I think they should be merged. anyone else have an opinion on this matter?Gaurdro (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes from me too. Some special attention is needed, as Nexenta is Debian/Ubuntu-based but doesn't have anything to do with Linux. Tazpa (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. This page is currently a list of all Linux distributions except Ubuntu-based ones.  This is clearly ridiculous; there's no reason to split Ubuntu-based, and only Ubuntu-based, distros off to a seperate page.  If this is to be a list of Linux distros, it should include Ubuntu-based ones.  There seems to be consensus both here and at Talk:List_of_Ubuntu-based_distributions that having a seperate page is pointless, so I'm going to merge. -- simxp (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Maintainers
The distro 'Feather Linux' is listed twice, under Debian and under Knoppix (fixed this). Can some people volenteer to be maintainers of this article, ie. check for mistakes like this? -- Aronzak (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also noticed that backtrack is listed under ;knoppix and slax. slax is right. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * These problems are solved. Note that all articles are looking for maintainers. --Chealer (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

ttylinux
please add ttylinux. it is an active very small linux distribution. http://ttylinux.org/ 24.251.158.189 (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

New Ubuntu Variant
Isn't there a new Ubuntu variant called Lubuntu? I just learned of it today in the Ubuntu article. As you can see, it already has its own article. Apparently the first version was in October 2008. Maybe we should add it to the list? I don't think it's a complete version yet, though. What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dullstar (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

their most current release is a beta. the intent of the distro is not to be only a live cd, but that is all the current beta is. there is already a wikipedia article here: Lubuntu--69.107.87.153 (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)