This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
GNewSense article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
To-do list for GNewSense:
|
|
||
So this is currently the only article on WP which uses the appelation GNU/Linux distribution, despite the term being functionally equivalent to Linux distribution in common usage and Wikipedia's consistent use of Linux to refer to any GNU/Linux system. There's no need for this, and all it does is create the impression that this article is written from the personal point of view of those who support gNewSense. It shouldn't be doing this: articles are meant to be objective, and to follow the wider encyclopedia's rules and guidelines.
This should still be changed back, as every argument for keeping it as-is has been refuted previously on Talk:Linux. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been following this thread, but I just saw a note that this article is "the only one on Wikipedia" which uses the name "GNU/Linux" for the GNU+Linux operating system. I'd just like to point out, again, that the only reason "GNU/Linux" appears rarely on Wikipedia is because last Summer, Chris here, alone, replaced every occurrence of "GNU/Linux" with "Linux". Some people expressed concern, but Chris edits more than all those people combined, so it was impossible to stop his harmful activity. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't provide much protection against this type of harmful editting (which I call an "edit flood").
My position is like that of Wikipedians Jimbo Wales, [1] Simon Phipps, [2] Dkrogers, [3] NerdyNSK, [4] Mion, etc. From the point of view of writing an encyclopedia article, GNU/Linux is the right and correct name.
All we can do is save what little we can and hope that WP develops a protection against this or hope that Chris becomes less powerful sometime in the future. That could happen if many new Wikipedians come and stay and eventually counterbalance the weight of Chris's edits (and this article suggests that this may be already happening). -- Gronky ( talk) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
An RfC for the naming issue has been opened here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2008-04/msg00288.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.139.183 ( talk) 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was software patents and free software - a well-referenced article about the problems and solutions for software patents in the free software community. Help is sought however to expand the sections in that article.
For other interesting free software articles, you can take a look at the archive of PF's selectees. -- Gronky ( talk) 09:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone add to the "Technical aspects" section of the article which package management systems GNS can make use of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogburnd02 ( talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I dont feel the citation #10 is a valuable/useful one. It doesnt seem to actually answer *why* this is the case.
And related to that, I'm not aware of any GFDL+invariant sections documentation *in* gNS. It doesn't consider it non-free, but it hasn't added any in. So That point may be totally incorrect.
Kgoetz ( talk) 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, Debian Has been updated since this article was written. Their kernel version no longer includes binary blobs, but I do not feel qualified to edit this, as I don't know what other differences make Debian "nonfree" anymore. I think it has to do with documentation. 216.86.217.249 ( talk) 22:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
What sort of citation is required? Perhaps it was actually the statement about "good usability" that requires it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgoetz ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This version seems like an acceptable compromise to both me and Grandscribe. I'm not even going to try to figure out what was meant by the edit summary when it was summarily reverted, but let's see if we can't agree to restore that wording as it's more acceptable than the current version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Rather then simply make a change, I thought I'd ask about this here. I find the use of the word "Ironically" to fail NPOV, since for the GNU project (and gNewSense), having invariant sections is perfectly ok. Anyone mind if I remove it? "It should be noted, however, that gNewSense also includes documentation that the Debian project considers non-free, particularly that licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License with invariant sections. Ironically, this includes many manuals released by the GNU project themselves, which contain a lengthy manifest promoting software freedom as an invariant section."
kgoetz ( talk) 22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it "nuisance"? -- AnonMoos ( talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
guh-NEW-sense is the preferred pronunciation according to the gNewSense FAQ MentalNotes ( talk) 12:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The name originally came from a repository called "Gnuisance", and it was changed to gNewSense to be both a pun on GNU and the New Sense that the distribution offers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.64.1 ( talk) 00:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The next set of Mesa packages uploaded to the gNewSense archive (which should be there already) will re-introduce GLX support. Brian has posted on http://www.gnewsense.org/Main/HomePage , and SVN commit 223 was the code change. kgoetz ( talk) 00:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Two reasons for gNewSense being notable:
Autarch ( talk) 13:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Does a comparison with SuperOS provide any benefit (other then increase S.OS's link pool). I question its relevance, as the distro is no-name and seems to have no /actual/ comparison made on this page. kgoetz ( talk) 14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I just want to inform the regular editors of this page that user Yworo is not acting in good faith. He's making an important change on this page without having a discussion here. There's a discussion on the Ubuntu discussion page now. He tries to remove the term Free software as a valid phrase to describe software based on GNU/Linux for example Ubuntu, gNewSense, etc. While accusing me of not discussing any changes I do he does exactly that. He asks people on their talk pages to aid him in his edits and goes as far as to ask them to block me for no other reason that not agreeing to accept his changes. He does not even care to mention his sources.-- Grandscribe ( talk) 11:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
So, in discussing the actual topic.... Do you deny that free software is also open source software? Yworo ( talk) 11:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Here, anonymous: This is where you post your arguments against the term Free software. I'll even be so kind as to start first: I claimed no (global) consensus about the terminology, and contrary to your claims in reverts, there isn't one. Open source is a commercial wrapper for free software, which has recently begun to differ from it, as "free software" is now its subset because OSI approves some licenses deemed non-free by FSF. In any case, projects decide what to call it, and Gnewsense has chosen "free software" (see above). It is not I alone who acknowledges it, everyone here does (or most), I just revert you. And you're the one doing the bullying here. Now stop your cowardly reverts, log in and post here. -- Paxcoder ( talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Due to being made aware of a dispute on this page, I have protected it until disputes are resolved (with an expiry of two weeks in case I forget). Obviously, reaching a consensus on the talk page (regarding the above issue) is the most compelling way to show the dispute is resolved. Thanks for your patience, GDonato ( talk) 00:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
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 ( talk) 05:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC))
I dare to day this distro is pretty low on the " notability index". We have pretty much zero coverage by the media and not anything that can be classified as "reliable sources". In all fairness, if we were strict with the rules, this probably should be deleted... -- Jerebin ( talk) 03:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I hate to sound derisory but rms's obvious overall endorsement of the gNewSense distro is not entirely genuine as it evades the question of all of the other gnu/distros that the gnu team, of which rms is a part of, has tested out of the box, on reportedly Power-PC's. I find that this blights that very nerve of existence the gNewSense O/S provides as it is possible to use QEMU to allow for other distros to be used as a modular integration to the overall package. This progression thru the functionality of the distro qualifies a "significant change" to the personas that the distro encapsulates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.16.10.128 ( talk)
This GNU/Linux distribution qualifies as a GNU Guidelines for Free System Distributions (GNU GFSD) [6]. This guideline calls to avoid certain terms [7] [8], two of which can be found in the Template:infobox OS:
I have unsuccessfully commented out them with references to the GNU GFSD with something like this (with and without [9] links):
| marketing_target = <!-- GNU GFSD committed distribution - https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#words-to-avoid --> | source_model = <!-- GNU GFSD committed distribution - https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#words-to-avoid -->
Despite name-calling like "spam" and "vandalism" when using these license references in the Template:infobox OS, the problem calls for attention. If I haven't used the right method to signal the problem, what method should I use? Is there a way to raise the issue that follows rules but isn't a hopeless dead end? -- David Hedlund ( talk) 01:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The dates in the table under "Versions" are using the ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD). [10] May Ahunt or another editor state the reason to use this format? 84.127.115.190 ( talk) 17:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GNewSense. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
GNewSense article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
To-do list for GNewSense:
|
|
||
So this is currently the only article on WP which uses the appelation GNU/Linux distribution, despite the term being functionally equivalent to Linux distribution in common usage and Wikipedia's consistent use of Linux to refer to any GNU/Linux system. There's no need for this, and all it does is create the impression that this article is written from the personal point of view of those who support gNewSense. It shouldn't be doing this: articles are meant to be objective, and to follow the wider encyclopedia's rules and guidelines.
This should still be changed back, as every argument for keeping it as-is has been refuted previously on Talk:Linux. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been following this thread, but I just saw a note that this article is "the only one on Wikipedia" which uses the name "GNU/Linux" for the GNU+Linux operating system. I'd just like to point out, again, that the only reason "GNU/Linux" appears rarely on Wikipedia is because last Summer, Chris here, alone, replaced every occurrence of "GNU/Linux" with "Linux". Some people expressed concern, but Chris edits more than all those people combined, so it was impossible to stop his harmful activity. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't provide much protection against this type of harmful editting (which I call an "edit flood").
My position is like that of Wikipedians Jimbo Wales, [1] Simon Phipps, [2] Dkrogers, [3] NerdyNSK, [4] Mion, etc. From the point of view of writing an encyclopedia article, GNU/Linux is the right and correct name.
All we can do is save what little we can and hope that WP develops a protection against this or hope that Chris becomes less powerful sometime in the future. That could happen if many new Wikipedians come and stay and eventually counterbalance the weight of Chris's edits (and this article suggests that this may be already happening). -- Gronky ( talk) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
An RfC for the naming issue has been opened here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2008-04/msg00288.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.139.183 ( talk) 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was software patents and free software - a well-referenced article about the problems and solutions for software patents in the free software community. Help is sought however to expand the sections in that article.
For other interesting free software articles, you can take a look at the archive of PF's selectees. -- Gronky ( talk) 09:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone add to the "Technical aspects" section of the article which package management systems GNS can make use of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogburnd02 ( talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I dont feel the citation #10 is a valuable/useful one. It doesnt seem to actually answer *why* this is the case.
And related to that, I'm not aware of any GFDL+invariant sections documentation *in* gNS. It doesn't consider it non-free, but it hasn't added any in. So That point may be totally incorrect.
Kgoetz ( talk) 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, Debian Has been updated since this article was written. Their kernel version no longer includes binary blobs, but I do not feel qualified to edit this, as I don't know what other differences make Debian "nonfree" anymore. I think it has to do with documentation. 216.86.217.249 ( talk) 22:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
What sort of citation is required? Perhaps it was actually the statement about "good usability" that requires it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgoetz ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
This version seems like an acceptable compromise to both me and Grandscribe. I'm not even going to try to figure out what was meant by the edit summary when it was summarily reverted, but let's see if we can't agree to restore that wording as it's more acceptable than the current version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Rather then simply make a change, I thought I'd ask about this here. I find the use of the word "Ironically" to fail NPOV, since for the GNU project (and gNewSense), having invariant sections is perfectly ok. Anyone mind if I remove it? "It should be noted, however, that gNewSense also includes documentation that the Debian project considers non-free, particularly that licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License with invariant sections. Ironically, this includes many manuals released by the GNU project themselves, which contain a lengthy manifest promoting software freedom as an invariant section."
kgoetz ( talk) 22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it "nuisance"? -- AnonMoos ( talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
guh-NEW-sense is the preferred pronunciation according to the gNewSense FAQ MentalNotes ( talk) 12:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The name originally came from a repository called "Gnuisance", and it was changed to gNewSense to be both a pun on GNU and the New Sense that the distribution offers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.64.1 ( talk) 00:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The next set of Mesa packages uploaded to the gNewSense archive (which should be there already) will re-introduce GLX support. Brian has posted on http://www.gnewsense.org/Main/HomePage , and SVN commit 223 was the code change. kgoetz ( talk) 00:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Two reasons for gNewSense being notable:
Autarch ( talk) 13:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Does a comparison with SuperOS provide any benefit (other then increase S.OS's link pool). I question its relevance, as the distro is no-name and seems to have no /actual/ comparison made on this page. kgoetz ( talk) 14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I just want to inform the regular editors of this page that user Yworo is not acting in good faith. He's making an important change on this page without having a discussion here. There's a discussion on the Ubuntu discussion page now. He tries to remove the term Free software as a valid phrase to describe software based on GNU/Linux for example Ubuntu, gNewSense, etc. While accusing me of not discussing any changes I do he does exactly that. He asks people on their talk pages to aid him in his edits and goes as far as to ask them to block me for no other reason that not agreeing to accept his changes. He does not even care to mention his sources.-- Grandscribe ( talk) 11:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
So, in discussing the actual topic.... Do you deny that free software is also open source software? Yworo ( talk) 11:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Here, anonymous: This is where you post your arguments against the term Free software. I'll even be so kind as to start first: I claimed no (global) consensus about the terminology, and contrary to your claims in reverts, there isn't one. Open source is a commercial wrapper for free software, which has recently begun to differ from it, as "free software" is now its subset because OSI approves some licenses deemed non-free by FSF. In any case, projects decide what to call it, and Gnewsense has chosen "free software" (see above). It is not I alone who acknowledges it, everyone here does (or most), I just revert you. And you're the one doing the bullying here. Now stop your cowardly reverts, log in and post here. -- Paxcoder ( talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Due to being made aware of a dispute on this page, I have protected it until disputes are resolved (with an expiry of two weeks in case I forget). Obviously, reaching a consensus on the talk page (regarding the above issue) is the most compelling way to show the dispute is resolved. Thanks for your patience, GDonato ( talk) 00:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
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 ( talk) 05:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC))
I dare to day this distro is pretty low on the " notability index". We have pretty much zero coverage by the media and not anything that can be classified as "reliable sources". In all fairness, if we were strict with the rules, this probably should be deleted... -- Jerebin ( talk) 03:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I hate to sound derisory but rms's obvious overall endorsement of the gNewSense distro is not entirely genuine as it evades the question of all of the other gnu/distros that the gnu team, of which rms is a part of, has tested out of the box, on reportedly Power-PC's. I find that this blights that very nerve of existence the gNewSense O/S provides as it is possible to use QEMU to allow for other distros to be used as a modular integration to the overall package. This progression thru the functionality of the distro qualifies a "significant change" to the personas that the distro encapsulates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.16.10.128 ( talk)
This GNU/Linux distribution qualifies as a GNU Guidelines for Free System Distributions (GNU GFSD) [6]. This guideline calls to avoid certain terms [7] [8], two of which can be found in the Template:infobox OS:
I have unsuccessfully commented out them with references to the GNU GFSD with something like this (with and without [9] links):
| marketing_target = <!-- GNU GFSD committed distribution - https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#words-to-avoid --> | source_model = <!-- GNU GFSD committed distribution - https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#words-to-avoid -->
Despite name-calling like "spam" and "vandalism" when using these license references in the Template:infobox OS, the problem calls for attention. If I haven't used the right method to signal the problem, what method should I use? Is there a way to raise the issue that follows rules but isn't a hopeless dead end? -- David Hedlund ( talk) 01:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The dates in the table under "Versions" are using the ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD). [10] May Ahunt or another editor state the reason to use this format? 84.127.115.190 ( talk) 17:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GNewSense. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)