Talk:List of Linux distributions endorsed by the Free Software Foundation

The title of this page
This should *really* be moved to something with a shorter title. — Lasse Havelund (p · t · c) 02:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this title is ridiculous. 190.189.230.31 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO alternatives might sound easier to read, but would either risk ambiguity or be longer, but let's try some suggestions anyway:
 * List of free GNU/Linux distributions html page title of http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html - debate: is the "free as in software" meaning obvious enough, given the "GNU/Linux" in there?
 * List of 100% free GNU/Linux distributions (with the risk of % itself probably ending up html-escaped as %25 :) ?)
 * List of fully free as in free software GNU/Linux distributions - less ambiguous, but longer
 * List of fully free-as-in-speech GNU/Linux distributions - unambiguous, but long
 * Liste de distributions libres de GNU/Linux - short and snappy, but non-French speakers might complain or invoke Guidelines and allege that English-language equivalents of this expression exist and are commonly used
 * i would tend to go for the first option - List of free GNU/Linux distributions - it's generally pretty difficult to come up with something better than what GNU people come up with... Boud (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC) - minor correction to what i had intended to type Boud (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to "List of Linux distributions endorsed by the Free Software Foundation". Yes, it's unwieldy, but both the current title and all the ones suggested above suffer from the problem that they're not a correct description of the content. This page is a list of Linux distros endorsed by the FSF, and should be presented as such; pretending it's a canonical, indisputable list of The Only Free Distros is non-NPOV to the point of being disingenuous. Wikipedia is not an FSF advocacy site, and information from the FSF needs to be presented in the same way as information from any other source: neutral and explicit about the source. I've rewritten the introduction from scratch with this in mind. Cheers! -- simxp (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa, hang on. What happened to "GNU/Linux"? I don't think the FSF would endorse anything called just "Linux" that refers to an OS. Professor Calculus  talk!  15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am with Prof Calculus. This page is about the FSF and what they endorse.  They don't endorse "Linux distributions" .  I disagree with Simxp because he says "this page is a list of linux distros endorsed by the FSF"  This is simply flat out false.  They FSF doesn't endorse anything simply called a "linux distro".  If you want to be accurate to the article which is what the FSF does endorse it is GNU/Linux.  It even says so on their endorsement page.  SirGrant (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Followup I also think it should be List of GNU/Linux distributions endorsed by the Free Software Foundation. Simxp is right about the part about how these might not be the only "100% free" distros.  It is simply the ones endorsed by the FSF.  As far as the "linux distro" vs "GNU/Linux" distro there is no "official" or non-POV right answer.  It is a controversial issue and just because more people call them "linux distros" does not make it any less non-pov.  That is Argumentum ad populum.  It should be GNU/Linux in this particular case because it is referring to what the FSF endorses and they only endorse what is called GNU/Linux.  SirGrant (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * By a very long-standing Wikipedia consensus distributions that use the Linux kernel are referred to as "Linux". The Term "GNU/Linux" is considered a POV term that is solely used by the GNU Project/FSF and its supporters. Before diving into this long-standing issue you really need to get into the background of it and understand the larger issues. You should read through Talk:Linux/Referring to this article, Talk:Linux/Name and the complete set of archives for Talk:Linux. The summary of consensus on this contentious issue is that the term "Linux" is used, and not "GNU/Linux" with a few exceptions. One of these is the case where a Linux distro calls its self "GNU/Linux" as in the case of Debian GNU/Linux. Even then you will note that the article name is Debian, because under WP:COMMONNAME Wikipedia policy dictates that the most commonly used term is used in article names in Wikipedia. Essentially by consensus the term "GNU/Linux" is considered an FSF marketing term to promote its own interests. That is fine for them to do that, but Wikipedia does not support organizational marketing efforts. For instance if General Motors decided to start calling its products "Autodynes" then Wikipedia would note that they do that, but still refer to them as cars anyway as it is the common-use term. As it all applies to this article, the term "Linux" and "Linux distribution" are used as general terms. If a specific distribution calls itself "X GNU/Linux" that that title can be used as the distro name, but the description of it should refer to it as a "Linux distribution" and not a "GNU/Linux distribution". - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * By the same reasoning would you use Xerox copy for photo copying because everybody uses it or would you redirect Xerox_copy to photocopy? At least in this case where the endorser is the one we refer to, I think it is adequate to talk about what they endorse and not about other issues. User:Quiliro 2011 March 21 22:07 (UTC)


 * I think this is a crying shame. You may say it is a marketing attempt, but to what end? Surely, it's not their attempt to profit. Their intent is obvious with understanding of the name Free Software Foundation: it is to promote free software. There are others that use the term "Linux" to label all free software and open source software along with non-free software. Doing so they undermined the state of community's care for either movements. When new users hear the term Linux, they will never understand the goals. I feel that since Wikipedia has chosen to use a term that is so badly used, it has failed spread the knowledge of free software and open source software. Of course since Wikipedia must support users who have no intention of learning that knowledge, it definitely must be easier for them. blackwidowhex (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are lots of opportunities for casual readers to understand both sides of that debate, particularly in the article GNU/Linux naming controversy. Personally I am not particularly committed either side, except to the Wikipedia principle of deciding these sorts of issues by consensus and then all of us supporting the consensus. I would suggest if you want to reopen the debate then the place to do so is at Talk:Linux/Name. - Ahunt (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be excited to do so, but I am little confused since that page says it is archived and to consult the current talk page Talk:Linux. Would it not be smarter if there was a complete directory of distributions: BSD, GNU/HURD, GNU/Linux, Linux and others? I think from there it would be easier to settle the referring/naming controversy. Additionally, I think those who were searching for a shorter title could have gone with "Free Software Foundation endorsed distributions". User:blackwidowhex (talk) 22:33 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The FSF endorses several operating system distributions including one based on Java that doesn't contain GNU. Nevertheless, the FSF is the copyright holder of bigger part of the GNU operating system (which does not contain Linux). Additionally, the FSF does not endorse Linux. When someone refers to "distros" they usually mean a version of GNU but that does not mean that there are any not BSD distros. If you want to refer to "software endorsed by the FSF" that would be how they refer to the general group. "Distro" is a subset of operating system. Not the other way around. User:Quiliro (talk) 2011 March 21 21:45 (UTC)


 * So what you mean is that a distribution of Linux is really just a distribution of the kernel, hence contradicts the point of discussing it as an operating system distribution. My original meaning was based on my inaccurate notion that Android/Linux is called a Linux distribution. Even on Wikipedia, it is not called a Linux distribution. I know that the FSF doesn't recommend it, but I thought people wanted a NPOV, in that they wanted to see more than just a FSF endorsed list of distros. I'll retract that question. Blackwidowhex (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Android has very little of GNU and has mostly other tools. But that is not the point. The point is that a neutral point of view would consider how all parts would understand the naming. Naming a distribution of the GNU operating system with a kernel other than Linux as a Linux distro would not be understandable by anyone. In fact, many of those distros can be used with kernels other than Linux and do not consider themselves Linux distros. as the NPOV says: "... the neutral point of view should not be interpreted as the exclusion of certain points of view." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quiliro (talk • contribs) 21:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ark Linux
Are there any claims contrary to what the Ark Linux wikipedia entry claims, it is not 100% free? Or alternatively, can someone find at least a diret claim by Ark Linux that it is 100% free? After searching for 5-10 minutes, i failed to find such a claim. The style of the distribution does seem cool, so the claim is credible, but when Ark Linux itself does not even make such a claim, it would require someone a bit of effort to search/download/grep through the distribution to make a sanity-check minimal verification. Boud (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The Ark Linux FAQ says that it uses free software and open source software licences: http://forum.arklinux.org/index.php?action=pages;sa=2/ - this is now on the Ark Linux page. Is this strong enough to include it here?


 * If there are no objections within some reasonable delay, i'll add it to the list. Boud (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, to my knowledge Ark contains a version of the Linux kernel with the usual proprietary bits included, like most of the other distros. Unless there's a specific claim to the contrary (not just the usual, looser, Free software claims), it shouldn't be added. Greenman (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look on the Ark Linux web site, you'll see the claim. We had a series of crack attempts on our web server that caused us to redo the site completely. Luckily, the crack attempts seem to be over. --Pikidalto (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

GNU/Linux system and GNU/Linux distro
IMHO, there is no POV in using the word GNU/Linux to designate the whole system, and the expression GNU/Linux distribution to designate a distro. Please, see the linux-kernel mailing list FAQ for more information. In this FAQ, we have tried to use the word "Linux" or the expression "Linux kernel" to designate the kernel, and GNU/Linux to designate the entire body of GNU/GPL'ed OS software, as found in the various distributions. We prefer to call a cat, a cat, and a GNU, a GNU. ;-) The purpose of the FAQ is to provide information on the Linux kernel and avoid debates on e.g. semantics issues. Further discussion of the relationship between GNU software and Linux can be found at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html. BTW, it seems many people forget that the linux kernel mailing list is a forum for discussion of kernel-related matters, not GNU/Linux in general; please do not bring up this subject on the list. [...] GNU/Linux distributions are usually based on [...] except for kernels included in GNU/Linux distributions which [...] (Genium (Genium (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC))


 * See Talk:GNewSense - Ahunt (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Venenux article not found?
Venenux its clarely cited and endorse in GNU/Linux as oficial free distribution.. as show web of FSF.. now by 3 years.. but there's no wikipedia article about, due somne wikipedist that not like!

Can be someone but and start and venenux article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.62.27.27 (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not believe there are sufficient independent reliable sources to establish the notability of this distribution. Yworo (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fedora
Doesn't Fedora conform to the FSF definition? -Anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.119.176 (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't meet the FSF's rather rigid definition, most likely because non-free software, like Adobe Flash, and non free drivers are available. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of Gobuntu
Is having Gobuntu in the see also section relevant? It was never endorsed by the FSF and doesn't make sense on this page. It would make more sense on the Ubuntu (operating system) page's see also section than here. Ziiike (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, it isn't all that relevant to this article and it not longer exists. I have removed it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Merged
This page has been merged into Comparison of Linux distributions --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)