Talk:List of Linux distributions/Archive 3

About Pardus & Pisi Linux
Pardus use no more pisi package management system, its now based on debian system http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=pardus and i listed hem on debian based category, not remove. Pisi linux other side, its a fork of old pisi based Pardus, and using pisi package management system http://pisilinuxworld.org/ and i adapy this to the old line of pardus. A staff will this commit retrieval. Pls, take first a control — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enerjiparki (talk • contribs) 02:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You may not change the entry for Pardus. There is an article on Pisi Linux, which can be added. You are being reverted because you are replacing Pardus instead of just adding Pisi. Yworo (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

But you reverted without control, have u looked on page ? with ur revert its now 2 article for Pardus one says, Pardus based on debian, the other says, pardus uses PISI as package manager. Have you any idea about pisi and debian ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.157.230 (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If the Pardus article needs to be updated, it should be updated. I don't see two articles, only one. Yworo (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, you mean two entries in the list. Pardus should have two entries, since over its history it falls into two categories. This is not just list of current Linux distros, it included historical distros as well. Yworo (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding Ubuntu as a separate Distribution that other distributions are based on
Adding Ubuntu as a separate Category that other Distributions are based on is not needed, since Ubuntu is based on Debian, thus every distribution based on Ubuntu is based on Debian. A sub-list under Ubuntu has been made, but this belongs under the main header of Debian. Adding a new header of Ubuntu equates to nothing less then SPAM. Please do not continue to add Ubuntu as a main header, Ubuntu is based on Debian. ravtux 22:43 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, I think that Ubuntu-based distributions should in an “Ubuntu-based” section, not the Debian-based section; Ubuntu is a complete overhaul of Debian. 76.183.213.20 20:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Proof that Ubuntu users don't know anything about Operating Systems at all. Ubuntu is based on Debian, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.199.228 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Ubuntu is not compatible with Debian repositories. Period. 96.31.215.13 (talk) 07:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please add Red Star OS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Star_OS

Looks very interesting.69.89.79.10 (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Progeny?
Is this list to include defunct distributions as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.161.246 (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Zorin OS and Cylon Linux
There is 2 distributions that I really like, Zorin and Cylon, and they aren't listed. I am not quite sure what it is based on. There is a website about Cylon and zorin that you can gather information. Please add them. - Unnamed user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.34.192 (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

time, active/inactive
Times, when an distributions was active/distributed and when it went off/merged into another would be nice. 78.35.214.202 (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Does ChruBuntu exist?
It is strange but with search engine tracking I have found that I can not get to any site that has a download for something that news stories claim is a version of Ubuntu that is made to run on chromebooks. Does this operating system exist or is it a false fiction of some reporters? If it is actually a version of Ubuntu that does actually exist, why is it not referenced on this wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.89.217 (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

OpenMandriva forked from Mandriva 2012/12/12
... and should be integrated into Mandriva lineage text and illustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.48.50 (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it should not per WP:WTAF: there is no article about OpenMandriva distribution. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Article name change
Does anyone agree that this article should be changed to "list of GNU/Linux distributions" instead of "list of Linux distributions? --184.17.173.136 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Arch based distributions
Bridge and Bluestar are Arch based distributions that seem to have been overlooked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.90.196 (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on List of Linux distributions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130628085223/http://www.binaryemotions.com:80/instant-webkiosk/ to http://www.binaryemotions.com/instant-webkiosk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130529183130/http://www.salineos.com:80/ to http://www.salineos.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121121042717/http://www.elementmypc.com:80/main/index.php to http://www.elementmypc.com/main/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121128050744/http://itsquare.pt:80/en/kuki-linux-en to http://itsquare.pt/en/kuki-linux-en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

NethServer
Added NethServer as a RHEL based distro. Rob.bosch (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If SME_Server is allowed to have an entry here, NethServer should too. Do not remove again please. A NethServer wikipedia page will be added later.Rob.bosch (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The criteria for being listed on this page is that each entry has a standalone Wikipedia article. If an entry does not have an article, it will be removed. Write the article first, ensuring that the written article meets the relevant notability criteria, and then add the entry here. - Aoidh (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Troll
Are you here to add a new distribution that you recently created? This is almost certainly not the place!
 * STOP *******:

^^ a simply outrageous assertion and who am i speaking to your phone number please? ^^ you may by encyclopedic rule force a new page for "other independant" ^^ if careful to avoid "picking winners": but you did not make such a page yet


 * The editing note you removed explained why your distro is being removed. "As with all lists on Wikipedia, the subject matter here should be backed by substantial, reliable third party sources. If your distribution has such coverage, write an article referencing it, and then link the distro here. Otherwise, please do not crowd out this list." I'm not sure what you're trying to say above, but if you believe the distro is sufficiently notable, you are welcome to click here. For my part, I have searched for coverage on "X-LFS-2010" and have been unable to find anything to suggest notability. - Aoidh (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Unofficial is not neutral language
Unofficial is not neutral language. Official Distributions may be supported by canonical but "unofficial" distributions are supported by other sources. There is nothing unofficial about any distribution listed. They are not officially support by canonical but they do not claim to be. There is no reason below to call distributions based on fedora unofficial and above we are not calling Ubuntu an unofficial distribution of Ubuntu. Calling these unofficial really just seems promotional.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the wording sources use. Also, this contrasts with the actual, officially supported-by-Canonical variants. They are unofficial because they are not officially supported by Canonical. That's not a neutrality issue, it's a factual statement supported by sources, both online and in print. Also note that "unofficial variants" and "derivatives" are does not mean "unofficial derivatives", the unofficial variants wording refers to distros that take the Ubuntu system, change very little, and repackage it as something else. This is in contrast to distros that change it akin to how Ubuntu is based on Debian, but isn't a reskin of it. - Aoidh (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I hear your argument but what I fail to see in the article is any attempt to provide a definition for what an "unofficial" anything is. Your final source actually defines the actual problem here and clears up the neutrality issue. Yet it's not in the article and the neutrality is left in question, necessitating a talk page discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Why the blackPanther OS is banned from the Wikipedia?
We have tried to create a Wikipedia article for the blackPanther OS several times but the admins deleted that every times. The reason was that, there is no enough link to this distro from another Wikipedia articles. And when we try to add to an article this distro you delete it with that reason there is no Wikipedia article about this distro. (Hens or eggs infinite loop...) This distro has the same popularity than the Frugalware. (Check on the distrowatch please!) In Hungary it is the secondary most popular distro after the Ubuntu. (For example it is the Hungarian wiki page statistics: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=hu.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=BlackPanther_OS|Frugalware|Ubuntu_(Linux-disztribúció)|SuSE ) And also popular in the neighbor countries, for example in Slovakia and Romania. This is not a new Ubuntu clone, It is an old (15 years old) and independent developement (originally based on Mandrake but since 2008 it is totally independent) which is an important member of the Linux family three! (It is on the image in this article too) Why do you delete this distro from the Wikipedia every times when somebody wants to add it to a list, or wants to create an article to this distro? I feel that you Wikipedia admins are a little bit biased. If not please help me to create an article for this distro. Thanks! H Miki (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The reasons for the article's deletions in the past are listed here, the last of which was 2014 and have nothing to do with internal links from Wikipedia. If you have tried to get it created under another name, please link so that we can follow the discussions. Subjects of Wikipedia articles require reliable references, which seem never to have been provided. Please see Your first article - you can try create something in a sandbox first and get it reviewed before submitting it as an article. Greenman (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a deletion in the simple wiki too
 * Sorry but I don't want to edit any page if somebody will delete like these. If you can garantee that nobody will delete my work I will write again an article but without that no, sorry I am too tired of this. H Miki (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Linux distributions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121126092058/http://crunchbang.org/ to http://crunchbang.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160322235935/http://www.mepiscommunity.org/mx to http://www.mepiscommunity.org/mx/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050913194804/http://www.opentle.org/ to http://www.opentle.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160601200956/http://distrowatch.com/ to http://distrowatch.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of Linux distributions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607083816/http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/lucid/man5/deb.5.html to http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/lucid/man5/deb.5.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607091301/http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/hardy/en/man1/dpkg.1.html to http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/hardy/en/man1/dpkg.1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121127205500/http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/tv to http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/tv
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223030248/http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/android to http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/android
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130401074214/http://www.musix.org.ar/en/ to http://www.musix.org.ar/en/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120911140109/http://www.sw-linux.com/en/scripts/main/index.php to http://www.sw-linux.com/en/scripts/main/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424205015/http://www.vyatta.org/ to http://www.vyatta.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050703012324/http://featherlinux.berlios.de/ to http://featherlinux.berlios.de/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121129124511/http://www.hikarunix.org/ to http://www.hikarunix.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep Zorin OS
User:Aoidh cited WP:WTAF, but there is Draft:Zorin OS that I'll just complete myself and submit for review. I also had a reliable source that you removed and really shouldn't have. I don't think your edits made the wiki page better by removing the source, and WTAF seems to not be entirely one-sided, saying: "Thus, an entry often may simply present encyclopedically relevant facts from the cited reliable sources and not link to a separate article on the narrow subtopic (which by itself might be encyclopedically relevant but fall short of independent notability) of that particular list entry. One of the main distinctions between lists and article categories in that lists may contain non-notable entries (though some high-level lists' inclusion criteria are not so broad)." I think that, in this case, and considering the draft article that I'm writing, it's okay to keep the entry in the list. Sorry GermanJoe I didn't mean to put you there the first time, I misunderstood who did the revert.  HarryKernow  (talk to me) 02:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * No worries about the mismention :). Anyway, I'd also prefer if the entry would be omitted (for now). Unfortunately lists like this are routinely targetted by a lot of really non-notable drive-by additions - from other editors - cluttering the page. Your draft is possibly about a notable topic (haven't checked in-depth), but it would be clearer and better manageable for such a large list to strictly limit it to existing mainspace articles only and wait for drafts to be finished and reviewed first. This is not really about your specific draft, but about a general consistent handling for such situations in a large list prone to bloating. When the draft is published, you can easily re-insert the deleted entry with 1 click of course. GermanJoe (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If the draft is approved and appears to be notable, that's one thing. But there is a longstanding consensus on this and similar pages to not include entries that don't have an article. There have been several attempts to create a Zorin OS article; they were deleted. Notability may have changed since then, but if this article included every distro in existance, it would be an article bloated by tens of thousands of entries. That's not productive, thus the standard of notable entries. Looking at the draft thus far, it's much the same as the previous entries and not likely to stay around as an article; that single brief mention in the book doesn't muster notability, neither does DistroWatch (and you can simply buy an entry there). - Aoidh (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Error in Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg
Towards the top of the graphic in red off of the Knoppix line is Kaella. Clicking on it takes you to a Japanese hair removal site. I believe that the distribution is spelled Kali and should direct to http://www.kali.org/ Claymorde (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Parsix is discontinued
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsix

> In 2017, the official website announce the shutdown of the project in the year, and suggest users to go to Debian stretch.

Tuxayo (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Slax
Slax is no longer based on slackware but on debian, since a few years. 80.110.100.238 (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Pending revisions still necessary?
CC: User:MER-C, User:TakuyaMurata. Does this page really need to have pending revisions enabled? The page log suggests "persistent spamming" as the reason but I didn't see an analysis to show spamming was above normal on a long term basis. I was tempted to just go ahead and return it to the normal editing model as pending changes should really be used to to protect against a persistent pattern of vandalism, which I don't see has been established. Here's about policy on WP:WHITELOCK. Perhaps pending changes protection can be lifted on a trial basis to see if the vandalism rate still warrants the lock? Jason Quinn (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Are new editors still trying to add non-notable distributions to this page? Yes, three have been cleared out this week. MER-C 09:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Pacman?
Under the pacman-based section, the description of pacman's functions are fairly redundant since it describes package managers as a whole. I think that sentence should be removed and in its place a description of pacman's distinguishing features or applications and why distributions are built around it. TPFNoob (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Can/Should add distros?
Can/Should I add my Ubuntu based distros in this list?

- ERP OS: Enterprise Resource Planning Operating System for businesses

- POS OS: Point of Sale Operating System for shops

- EG OS: Educational Gaming Operating System for kids

Asakpke (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This page lists only distros that meet Wikipedia's requirements for noteworthiness. That is, only distros that are noteworthy enough to have their own article are listed. Unfortunately, your distros aren't currently noteworthy enough. TPFNoob (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

SystemRescueCD: Outdated information
On February 2, 2019, SystemRescueCD switched bases from Gentoo to Arch, per the changelog. Definitely suggest updating this article to reflect this. 2600:1700:53A0:63DF:0:0:0:1003 (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've updated the entry, thanks for bringing this up! TPFNoob (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

"Based on an "ancient" Fedora release which we are somewhere said it to upgrade under YUM. "
WTF does that mean? I mean, I'd fix it instead of complaining about it, but I have no clue what that is supposed to say... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPW00 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Debian Hardened
It seems Debian Hardened is a project that brings security features to Debian GNU/Linux, and is not itself a distribution. I'm removing it from th list. Tell me if this is not correct. Sether 00:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Porteus
What does it mean "based on Sector"? What is Sector? (It is written with a capital "S"). There is no reference.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Linux distributions
Template:Linux distributions should be mostly Isomorphic, similar in structure, to List of Linux distributions. Please help fix Template:Linux distributions .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Comparison of Linux distributions
Comparison of Linux distributions needs table elements filled in. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Why we are not allowed to write about the blackPanther OS on the Wikipedia?
The blackPanther OS is a 20 years old distro still under active developement. It is older than the popular Ubuntu and its forks! And it is not a fork of something else, an independent developement with several unique features. The blackPanther OS is a popular distro in its home country (Hungary). There were 5 attempts to create an English article about the blackPanther OS, all of them was deleted by different reasons. The last reason was that there are no another articles which refer to this distro. And of course it is not allowed to refer anywhere to this distro. If somebody try that always come somebody who undo that edit because there is no article about this distro. So it is an infinite loop, impossible to write about this distro. I feel that it is just simply a discrimination because it is not a new Ubuntu fork what you like... Ncr0drX (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It was deleted because of a lack of required reliable sources - that is, academic journals, major newspapers, etc. Links from other Wikipedia pages have absolutely no bearing on this. You are wasting your time if you think adding this topic to Wikipedia lists is going to allow you to write an article on it. - MrOllie (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes to the master timeline
Asahi Linux is absent from the master timeline and Pardus was changed from being Gentoo-based to being Debian-based in 2013. -- 173.20.216.139 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Red Star OS, Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux are also absent from the master timeline, and CentOS was discontinued in late 2021. 173.20.216.139 (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * RebeccaBlackOS and CBL-Mariner are also absent from the master timeline. 173.20.216.139 (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Ubuntu touch: discontiued?
Since when is Ubuntu Touch discontinued? Neither their website nor the wikipedia article for it seem to indicate a discontinuation of said distro.

EDIT: While it does seem that Ubuntu Touch has seen its support terminated by Canonical Group, UBports is still (actively?) working on it 2001:861:3285:7E00:8F34:79F5:E70B:7ED5 (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Malware bot detected
Some editor keeps deleting my distro "automatically" from a bot page. Unfair competition detected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MrOllie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aoidh

I am not signed in becuase like TWITTER, Wikipedia keeps deleting the truth using malware bots.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:143:480:A4C0:4ECC:6AFF:FE8E:47D (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit was reverted because the addition does not meet the criteria for inclusion; entries must have a standalone article. If you feel your distro should be included, write the article first. There is no malware involved in the removal of your distro. - Aoidh (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"Linux distrobutions" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Linux distrobutions and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)