![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
i would like to get a good understanding to linux,how it works,terms used in it,and in due course explanation and definitions used in linux —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.4 ( talk) 13:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that Image:NewTux.svg is used to depict the Linux kernel. However, as far as I'm aware, this is just an unofficial offshoot of the "official" mascot, which can still be seen at Image:Tux.svg. Tux.svg is the actual mascot, also seen at kernel.org, which we should be using instead. In case nobody disagrees, I'll just change the image. —msikma ( user, talk) 15:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The article should list distributions in the top most box instead of having the details on Linux kernel, which makes the article confusing. The Linux distribution article is closer to what this article should be. The distributions are the OS not the Linux kernel. -- 62.142.194.228 ( talk) 12:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the intro paragraphs are biased against GNU and are kept this way through aggressive editing by Chris Cunningham, a Sun employee, in violation of NPOV. Please do not revert my factual edits without discussion here first. Noahslater ( talk) 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Noahslater, I agree with you that the kernel's role is exagerated in the intro. I've made that point here many times.
Thumperward and I were (I think), editing to improve readability. We weren't re-engineering the balance between GNU and Linux. In his edits, I think Thumperward did tip that balance, but rather than react by overcompensation, I just returned it to where it was so that we could focus on the issue of clear wording and readability. I would like to fix the balance, but during the quiet times it would be nice to also address some readability issues.
I don't think GNU Hurd deserves mention in the intro, and talking about GNU Bash might also be diving into details too quickly. But if there is a debate about the balance, yes, I agree that Linus's kernel is exagerated. -- Gronky ( talk) 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I know it's a great sign of mainstream success that the software as been accepted by Dell, IBM, etc. etc. but this is unfair to the system's developers who did the bulk of the work when these corporations wouldn't give them the time of day. The contributions are significant today, but they were zero for the first 15 years of the system's life, and today they are sometimes great and sometimes "Oh, this package sucks and will never sell - let's GPL it do a pro-Linux press release!" I haven't decided how it would be best done, but I am thinking about how to more accurately represent who wrote the OS (looking from a distance, not at the project-affiliation level). -- Gronky ( talk) 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"The size of the GNU contribution led to the alternate name GNU/Linux "
I'm not doubting that it is, Linux is teh awesome, but we need citations for that.-- EleFlameMax ( talk) 11:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"Linux is a Unix-like computer operating system." Even though the top of the article says that the article is about operating systems that use the kernel, you can't give the name Linux credit for being one. I'm not saying that you call it GNU/Linux, because that term is also not right in all contexts (GNU isn't the only operating system that is capable of running on Linux), but don't go calling anything "this-and-that" when in fact it's only "this". Afarnen ( talk) 07:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't like that there are two Tux on the page one under another, is it possible to eliminate one? -- AdrianTM ( talk) 16:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
First I am not the one who makes claims about impartiality and then go around deleting the contributions of others because then do not fit my preconceived ideas and then use non existent justifications of "consensus" as a basis to do that. Since it is Mr.Cunningham who takes that initiative please at least indicate exactly where are the documents where such a discussion took place where a large enough number of people took part and if there was any vote to decide about the terms to use. These are things to be done not lightly.
Of course that I along with many other people want to help and contribute to share the knowledge we have about certain subject with others but it is the editor who proceeds to modify delete systematically who has to be serious and respectful and show us the document that backs his claims that legitimize his actions.
What is really outrageous is that there can be one person who comes to wikipedia with a "project" aimed at breaking some kind of "record" and just go around the encyclopedia and systematically change contributions.
I do not believe that there was ever any consensus reached and that even if one may not like it the debate over whether to use GNU/Linux or just Linux is far from over. Since there is a divided opinion on that matter the right thing to do as happens when things like that take place in other areas of life the two terms should be used.
It is more confusing to someone coming to get to know the operating system to see just the name Linux and only references to Linus Torvalds and then later on as one gets beyond the surface find the fingerprints of the Free Software Foundation and something called "GNU". Why is the Linux kernel which was created by Linus Torvalds and other programmers released under the GNU General Public License (GPL) if GNU had nothing to do with the creation of Linux? Why if the entire operating system is presented as being the work of Linus Torvalds one finds within the code of most programs the GNU GPL that comes from an organization in the United States called the Free Software Foundation?
In the film REVOLUTION OS even Linus Torvalds says that without the programs from the Free Software Foundation such as the GNU C compiler it would have been impossible to create Linux and most of the "open source" software. So why not say the truth and allow the use of the name GNU/Linux?
Again there was never any such consensus on forbidding the use of the term GNU/Linux and replacing it with Linux. In fact beyond the articles presented here in Wikipedia outside in the real world as more and more people and organizations get better informed the use of the term GNU/Linux is used more. This happens with governments and International organizations around the World. One example I can tell you is UNESCO. If you go to a newsstand there are magazines that are called GNU/Linux, in bookstores and libraries one can find books that are titled just GNU. Of course one can find also others called just Linux. It is more confusing for a neophyte who wants to learn the history and the operation of the operating system to use the word Linux than GNU/Linux. When anyone tries to download a software that works on "Linux" most of the times it will be released under the GNU GPL. So if GNU has nothing to do with Linux why is software given to me showing me this GNU GPL license???... a neophyte beginner will wonder.
The real reasons why the term "Linux", to refer to the entire operating system, as well as others such as "open source" is being pushed is that as the founders of the "Open Source Initiative" have expressed in books and interviews is that by avoiding the term GNU and the philosophy it carries with it you make the operating system more palatable to corporations and the business community. It all comes down to a matter of money and business.
Many people who work developing software are afraid companies will not invest in software that brings to mind ideas of freedom, such as that of free software which is not talking about software without charge, "gratuit" but software without restrictions to the user.
I have noted that many people that use the term Linux are involved in fact with companies that try to sell some software or programming service.
It is interesting to note that even Linus Torvalds when he first released his kernel he did not use the GNU GPL license. It was a proprietary program that only him could legally modify. It was only later that following the legal advice of one of his friends that he changed to the GPL license. The obvious reason is that he could not use his kernel program which was proprietary at first in combination with the GNU operating system that was released under the strict conditions set by the GNU General Public License and then try to sell the entire system because he would be violating the terms of agreement of the GPL covered programs he intended to use with his kernel. That would have ended with him in court for copyright violations.
It is known that is one of the reasons Torvalds does not like the GNU GPL. It does not allow him or anyone else to take free software, protected by the GPL, mix them with your own programs make it all proprietary then claim whole authorship and become wealthy in the process. Bald Eeagle ( talk) 09:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
is a particularly good example of why I'm not particularly keen on responding to these threads. Chris Cunningham ( talk) 11:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)"Torvalds does not like the GNU GPL... It does not allow him or anyone else to take free software... make it all proprietary then claim whole authorship and become wealthy in the process"
Ok.Short. Next time before you simple delete anyone's contribution can you PLEASE indicate where EXACTLY is that documentation that gives you the right to do so? It's not to hard to give a link to see where any kind of voting took place regarding certain terminology that has to be enforced throughout wikipedia. It would even make your editing "job" easier since everyone would probably just understand that you were doing the right thing and leave it there. But like this you create unnecessary frictions between contributors. Bald Eeagle ( talk) 13:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Chris! Look just in case I want to say that no one has canvassed me to confront you. I'd like to suggest to you that in order to avoid problems that consume your time and that of others that yo do not precipitate to delete anyone's contributions to any article as long as he is saying the truth even though there may be some differences of opinion. It would be better that before you or anyone else deletes someone else's contribution to an article to be in accordance to your opinion(POV) of how it should be presented that a discussion takes place and see what most have to say about it. Then at least you could show a consensus which so far you have failed to show.
That's all. Have a good week. Bald Eeagle ( talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
i would like to get a good understanding to linux,how it works,terms used in it,and in due course explanation and definitions used in linux —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.61.4 ( talk) 13:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that Image:NewTux.svg is used to depict the Linux kernel. However, as far as I'm aware, this is just an unofficial offshoot of the "official" mascot, which can still be seen at Image:Tux.svg. Tux.svg is the actual mascot, also seen at kernel.org, which we should be using instead. In case nobody disagrees, I'll just change the image. —msikma ( user, talk) 15:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The article should list distributions in the top most box instead of having the details on Linux kernel, which makes the article confusing. The Linux distribution article is closer to what this article should be. The distributions are the OS not the Linux kernel. -- 62.142.194.228 ( talk) 12:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the intro paragraphs are biased against GNU and are kept this way through aggressive editing by Chris Cunningham, a Sun employee, in violation of NPOV. Please do not revert my factual edits without discussion here first. Noahslater ( talk) 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Noahslater, I agree with you that the kernel's role is exagerated in the intro. I've made that point here many times.
Thumperward and I were (I think), editing to improve readability. We weren't re-engineering the balance between GNU and Linux. In his edits, I think Thumperward did tip that balance, but rather than react by overcompensation, I just returned it to where it was so that we could focus on the issue of clear wording and readability. I would like to fix the balance, but during the quiet times it would be nice to also address some readability issues.
I don't think GNU Hurd deserves mention in the intro, and talking about GNU Bash might also be diving into details too quickly. But if there is a debate about the balance, yes, I agree that Linus's kernel is exagerated. -- Gronky ( talk) 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I know it's a great sign of mainstream success that the software as been accepted by Dell, IBM, etc. etc. but this is unfair to the system's developers who did the bulk of the work when these corporations wouldn't give them the time of day. The contributions are significant today, but they were zero for the first 15 years of the system's life, and today they are sometimes great and sometimes "Oh, this package sucks and will never sell - let's GPL it do a pro-Linux press release!" I haven't decided how it would be best done, but I am thinking about how to more accurately represent who wrote the OS (looking from a distance, not at the project-affiliation level). -- Gronky ( talk) 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"The size of the GNU contribution led to the alternate name GNU/Linux "
I'm not doubting that it is, Linux is teh awesome, but we need citations for that.-- EleFlameMax ( talk) 11:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
"Linux is a Unix-like computer operating system." Even though the top of the article says that the article is about operating systems that use the kernel, you can't give the name Linux credit for being one. I'm not saying that you call it GNU/Linux, because that term is also not right in all contexts (GNU isn't the only operating system that is capable of running on Linux), but don't go calling anything "this-and-that" when in fact it's only "this". Afarnen ( talk) 07:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't like that there are two Tux on the page one under another, is it possible to eliminate one? -- AdrianTM ( talk) 16:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
First I am not the one who makes claims about impartiality and then go around deleting the contributions of others because then do not fit my preconceived ideas and then use non existent justifications of "consensus" as a basis to do that. Since it is Mr.Cunningham who takes that initiative please at least indicate exactly where are the documents where such a discussion took place where a large enough number of people took part and if there was any vote to decide about the terms to use. These are things to be done not lightly.
Of course that I along with many other people want to help and contribute to share the knowledge we have about certain subject with others but it is the editor who proceeds to modify delete systematically who has to be serious and respectful and show us the document that backs his claims that legitimize his actions.
What is really outrageous is that there can be one person who comes to wikipedia with a "project" aimed at breaking some kind of "record" and just go around the encyclopedia and systematically change contributions.
I do not believe that there was ever any consensus reached and that even if one may not like it the debate over whether to use GNU/Linux or just Linux is far from over. Since there is a divided opinion on that matter the right thing to do as happens when things like that take place in other areas of life the two terms should be used.
It is more confusing to someone coming to get to know the operating system to see just the name Linux and only references to Linus Torvalds and then later on as one gets beyond the surface find the fingerprints of the Free Software Foundation and something called "GNU". Why is the Linux kernel which was created by Linus Torvalds and other programmers released under the GNU General Public License (GPL) if GNU had nothing to do with the creation of Linux? Why if the entire operating system is presented as being the work of Linus Torvalds one finds within the code of most programs the GNU GPL that comes from an organization in the United States called the Free Software Foundation?
In the film REVOLUTION OS even Linus Torvalds says that without the programs from the Free Software Foundation such as the GNU C compiler it would have been impossible to create Linux and most of the "open source" software. So why not say the truth and allow the use of the name GNU/Linux?
Again there was never any such consensus on forbidding the use of the term GNU/Linux and replacing it with Linux. In fact beyond the articles presented here in Wikipedia outside in the real world as more and more people and organizations get better informed the use of the term GNU/Linux is used more. This happens with governments and International organizations around the World. One example I can tell you is UNESCO. If you go to a newsstand there are magazines that are called GNU/Linux, in bookstores and libraries one can find books that are titled just GNU. Of course one can find also others called just Linux. It is more confusing for a neophyte who wants to learn the history and the operation of the operating system to use the word Linux than GNU/Linux. When anyone tries to download a software that works on "Linux" most of the times it will be released under the GNU GPL. So if GNU has nothing to do with Linux why is software given to me showing me this GNU GPL license???... a neophyte beginner will wonder.
The real reasons why the term "Linux", to refer to the entire operating system, as well as others such as "open source" is being pushed is that as the founders of the "Open Source Initiative" have expressed in books and interviews is that by avoiding the term GNU and the philosophy it carries with it you make the operating system more palatable to corporations and the business community. It all comes down to a matter of money and business.
Many people who work developing software are afraid companies will not invest in software that brings to mind ideas of freedom, such as that of free software which is not talking about software without charge, "gratuit" but software without restrictions to the user.
I have noted that many people that use the term Linux are involved in fact with companies that try to sell some software or programming service.
It is interesting to note that even Linus Torvalds when he first released his kernel he did not use the GNU GPL license. It was a proprietary program that only him could legally modify. It was only later that following the legal advice of one of his friends that he changed to the GPL license. The obvious reason is that he could not use his kernel program which was proprietary at first in combination with the GNU operating system that was released under the strict conditions set by the GNU General Public License and then try to sell the entire system because he would be violating the terms of agreement of the GPL covered programs he intended to use with his kernel. That would have ended with him in court for copyright violations.
It is known that is one of the reasons Torvalds does not like the GNU GPL. It does not allow him or anyone else to take free software, protected by the GPL, mix them with your own programs make it all proprietary then claim whole authorship and become wealthy in the process. Bald Eeagle ( talk) 09:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
is a particularly good example of why I'm not particularly keen on responding to these threads. Chris Cunningham ( talk) 11:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)"Torvalds does not like the GNU GPL... It does not allow him or anyone else to take free software... make it all proprietary then claim whole authorship and become wealthy in the process"
Ok.Short. Next time before you simple delete anyone's contribution can you PLEASE indicate where EXACTLY is that documentation that gives you the right to do so? It's not to hard to give a link to see where any kind of voting took place regarding certain terminology that has to be enforced throughout wikipedia. It would even make your editing "job" easier since everyone would probably just understand that you were doing the right thing and leave it there. But like this you create unnecessary frictions between contributors. Bald Eeagle ( talk) 13:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Chris! Look just in case I want to say that no one has canvassed me to confront you. I'd like to suggest to you that in order to avoid problems that consume your time and that of others that yo do not precipitate to delete anyone's contributions to any article as long as he is saying the truth even though there may be some differences of opinion. It would be better that before you or anyone else deletes someone else's contribution to an article to be in accordance to your opinion(POV) of how it should be presented that a discussion takes place and see what most have to say about it. Then at least you could show a consensus which so far you have failed to show.
That's all. Have a good week. Bald Eeagle ( talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)