![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I nominated Criticism of Linux for deletion, here's the discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Linux_(2nd_nomination) I'm not going to repeat the arguments here, if you are interested in either way please vote on that page. Thanks. -- AdrianTM ( talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The current article says "Although there is a lack of a Linux ports for some specialized program domains such as desktop publishing[23] and professional audio,[24][25][26] applications equivalent to those available for Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows are available for most tasks"
For many readers, including me, this can be ambiguous because it seems the above "most tasks" doesn't include desktop publishing and professional audio. This is not true since there are mature Linux programs in these domains.
I suggest the following sentence: "Although there is a lack of a Linux ports for some Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows programs in domains such as desktop publishing[23] and professional audio,[24][25][26] applications equivalent to those available for Windows and Mac are available for Linux." Touisiau ( talk) 17:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: your project "Refer to Linux consistently"
I would like to offer my opinion. The project to excise all references to GNU/Linux is deeply POV and wrong. It should be reverted completely and totally as quickly as possible. Virtually all references to Linux should be references to GNU/Linux. I am certainly unaware of any community consensus which would support the draconian and absurd campaign that has been conducted against the correct naming convention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The previous message was posted by Jimbo Wales at the following address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thumperward
Lightedbulb ( talk) 12:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The aim is NOT to add the word GNU to EVERY occurrence of the word Linux.
When the article is referring to the kernel that has the name "Linux" the use of the word "Linux" is correct. But when an article or a section of it wrongly calls by the name "Linux" what indeed is GNU software, though running on a Linux kernel, the addition of the word GNU is justified. There has been a wrong practice carried out by some wikipedia editors of calling everything just "Linux". When another editor tried to correct the inaccuracy by pointing that to be precise the software under description was indeed GNU his contribution was quickly deleted, or reverted without further discussion. In fact, the so called "discussion" seemed to take place after not before the removal of the word GNU.
Mr. Wales, Wikipedia's founder, has the authority to correct this practice.
Lightedbulb (
talk)
00:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Lightedbulb, you might like to read WP:3RR. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 10:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Lightedbulb ( talk) 12:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Lightedbulb, your point of view on this is clear. Now, stop pushing it into articles and edit warring project-wide. The onus is on the person that wishes to change the present approach to justify it by convincing other editors. Prolog ( talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI folks, this is being discussed on the administrators' noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_trying_to_use_Jimbo_comment_as_a_club. Sarah 13:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
My Linux distribution runs software by GNU, KDE (which uses a library by Trolltech) and X.Org on top of the Linux Kernel, therefore I suggest that all references to Linux refer to GNU/KDE/Trolltech/X.Org/Linux. - Halo ( talk) 17:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
First, "Jimbo says" is not a good argument for anything. Having said that, I stand by my opinion (which is, as several have correctly noted, my own personal opinion and not policy) and urge editors to continue to revisit this issue. There is an ongoing debate about the naming convention, and I don't think there is any firm consensus one way or the other. I also don't think that any of our outstanding policies would give support to the campaign we have seen to excise GNU/Linux from so many articles. As far as I am aware, all major GNU/Linux distributions refer to it as GNU/Linux at least some of the time. Perhaps a useful approach would be to approach this as being similar to controversies about American versus British English, i.e. "please relax" as rule number one. :) In any event, I was not and am not recommending edit wars or a campaign to do anything...-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the big deal either way. If [[GNU/Linux]] = [[Linux|GNU/Linux]] = [[Linux]] (link-wise) and GNU/Linux is the most common kind of Linux then why do you care? To me it's similar to [[fish|wet fish]] vs [[fish]]. It's absurd that this has gone on for so damn long. Mike92591 ( talk) 04:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The page WP:JIMBOSAID is devoted to evaluating the nature Jimbo's personal input on specific content-related matters. Please take that part of the discussion over there.-- Factwhen ( talk) 07:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a better analogy would be the Persian Gulf/ Arabian Gulf naming controversy. We will most likely never reach agreement on the "correct" name, so we use the one most commonly used in the english speaking world (Persian Gulf, Linux) with mention and redirect of the alternative. Zarniwoot ( talk) 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely, there is already a guideline on this issue, which has been discussed to extreme lengths now, in the form of our naming conventions. Namely, the guideline is to use the name which is most commonly used around the world. We did various comparisons in the past, and Prolog provided some examples above. Linux is the more common form used, and GNU/Linux isn't. Why is this still being discussed?-
Localzuk
(talk)
22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
To add to this discussion here I found a good reason that would motivate the use of the word Linux. This comes from the Linux Mark Institute which collects money for Linus Torvalds.
I am a commercial entity (for example, a company, partnership or sole proprietor, profit or non-profit) selling software-related goods or services and using the word "Linux" in the entity’s name. Do I need to apply for a sublicense?
Yes, because you are using Linux as part of a trademark in connection with software-related goods or services. Software-related goods are computer programs and systems, or packages bundling software with tools, utilities, hardware, etc. Software-related services are services that deploy, document, facilitate the use of, or enhance computer programs and systems.
Even if you don’t use Linux as part of the entity’s name, if the entity has a product or service (whether sold or given away for free) that uses "Linux" in its name, you still need a sublicense for the use of the word Linux in the name of the products or services.
Taken from
Linux Mark Institute
http://www.linuxmark.org/faq.php#I_am_a_commercial_entity_a_company
Midnightcrow (
talk)
21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"...the Linux Mark Institute which collects money for Linus Torvalds."
Well for the lazy ones READ the article called Linux article section Copyright and naming
"...the Linux Mark Institute sent out a number of letters to distribution vendors requesting that a fee be paid for the use of the name, and a number of companies have complied."
Midnightcrow ( talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
'[Torvalds] was bound in 2005 by United States trademark law to take active measures to enforce the trademark.'
If the license is "free" who pays the cost of the license procedure? How does the LMI finance itself? The LMI website says ONLY approved requests will get a "free" license. Midnightcrow ( talk) 16:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Many of the editors who want to force the use of the word Linux to refer to software that is not even part of the Linux kernel at all have never shown that they are not part of the LMI or what you now mention the Linux foundation. This is very relevant because there are many in wikipedia who have been editing articles in a way to lead people to believe that they should use the word Linux to call software that has no relationship with the Linux kernel. It makes sense that if you lead the public to believe that a certain software that is not Linux should be called Linux they will at one point want to use that "Linux" word. Then they will find that they will need to ask for a license that until now you have failed to prove is absolutely free in all cases. What is your relationship to the Linux foundation or the LMI? Who finances the Linux foundation then?
Midnightcrow ( talk) 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This particular licensing debate is not relevant to the Linux vs GNU/Linux naming controversy. What the thing called Linux is, is the point. Not who owns a trademark. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
: Midnightcrow ( talk) 06:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
On another point, is it only me, or does Midnightcrow seem to have a similar kind of "rant" style to Bald Eeagle and Lightedbulb (both of which have been blocked now for sockpuppetry)? ~~ [Jam] [talk] 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well get used to it. It is obvious that when a dispute is not settled the discussions will continue for a long time as they should. Many people like you would like that no one expresses a point of view contrary to yours and then you will consider that as proof of agreement with your ideas and expressions in this case that "Linux" is the right word to use to call the UNIX like system that uses the GNU userland programs in conjunction with a kernel program known as "Linux". To call the entire operating system just "Linux" may be popular among many people but that doesn't mean that an Encyclopedia is forced to do the same. An Encyclopedia is not just a place where "popular" ideas or words find an echo and non "popular" names are not mentioned at all. If we followed that flawed logic then we would never mention in an encyclopedia the scientific names of plants or animals for example because they are not "popular" words. What kind of Encyclopedia is that that only uses "popular" words? A true Encyclopedia has to seek and spread the truth and be objective when describing the topics covered. It should strive to be as much scientific as possible.
Since the main components at work in the operating system some like to call "Linux" come from the GNU project and that without these GNU programs even the creation of the "Linux" kernel itself would never have been possible it is correct to use the name GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system using GNU components plus the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel owes its existence to the GNU C compiler. Without it the so called "Linux" kernel would have never existed. Many of you here say that we should call the entire thing Linux because it is thanks to Linux according to you that this operating system became popular. But then would Linux have existed without GNU? Could Linus Torvalds have created HIS kernel without the GNU C compiler? Wouldn't it be right to say then that GNU is the right name for the entire operating system because without the previous existence of GNU Torvalds could have never created (with the help of a lot of programmers collaborating over the Internet) his kernel? Besides that if we took out all the GNU programs and just kept the "Linux" kernel would we still have a REAL and useful operating system? Would it still be "popular"???
Midnightcrow ( talk) 00:48, 8 March 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
I nominated Criticism of Linux for deletion, here's the discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Linux_(2nd_nomination) I'm not going to repeat the arguments here, if you are interested in either way please vote on that page. Thanks. -- AdrianTM ( talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The current article says "Although there is a lack of a Linux ports for some specialized program domains such as desktop publishing[23] and professional audio,[24][25][26] applications equivalent to those available for Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows are available for most tasks"
For many readers, including me, this can be ambiguous because it seems the above "most tasks" doesn't include desktop publishing and professional audio. This is not true since there are mature Linux programs in these domains.
I suggest the following sentence: "Although there is a lack of a Linux ports for some Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows programs in domains such as desktop publishing[23] and professional audio,[24][25][26] applications equivalent to those available for Windows and Mac are available for Linux." Touisiau ( talk) 17:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: your project "Refer to Linux consistently"
I would like to offer my opinion. The project to excise all references to GNU/Linux is deeply POV and wrong. It should be reverted completely and totally as quickly as possible. Virtually all references to Linux should be references to GNU/Linux. I am certainly unaware of any community consensus which would support the draconian and absurd campaign that has been conducted against the correct naming convention.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The previous message was posted by Jimbo Wales at the following address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thumperward
Lightedbulb ( talk) 12:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The aim is NOT to add the word GNU to EVERY occurrence of the word Linux.
When the article is referring to the kernel that has the name "Linux" the use of the word "Linux" is correct. But when an article or a section of it wrongly calls by the name "Linux" what indeed is GNU software, though running on a Linux kernel, the addition of the word GNU is justified. There has been a wrong practice carried out by some wikipedia editors of calling everything just "Linux". When another editor tried to correct the inaccuracy by pointing that to be precise the software under description was indeed GNU his contribution was quickly deleted, or reverted without further discussion. In fact, the so called "discussion" seemed to take place after not before the removal of the word GNU.
Mr. Wales, Wikipedia's founder, has the authority to correct this practice.
Lightedbulb (
talk)
00:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Lightedbulb, you might like to read WP:3RR. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 10:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Lightedbulb ( talk) 12:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Lightedbulb, your point of view on this is clear. Now, stop pushing it into articles and edit warring project-wide. The onus is on the person that wishes to change the present approach to justify it by convincing other editors. Prolog ( talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI folks, this is being discussed on the administrators' noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_trying_to_use_Jimbo_comment_as_a_club. Sarah 13:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
My Linux distribution runs software by GNU, KDE (which uses a library by Trolltech) and X.Org on top of the Linux Kernel, therefore I suggest that all references to Linux refer to GNU/KDE/Trolltech/X.Org/Linux. - Halo ( talk) 17:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
First, "Jimbo says" is not a good argument for anything. Having said that, I stand by my opinion (which is, as several have correctly noted, my own personal opinion and not policy) and urge editors to continue to revisit this issue. There is an ongoing debate about the naming convention, and I don't think there is any firm consensus one way or the other. I also don't think that any of our outstanding policies would give support to the campaign we have seen to excise GNU/Linux from so many articles. As far as I am aware, all major GNU/Linux distributions refer to it as GNU/Linux at least some of the time. Perhaps a useful approach would be to approach this as being similar to controversies about American versus British English, i.e. "please relax" as rule number one. :) In any event, I was not and am not recommending edit wars or a campaign to do anything...-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 23:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the big deal either way. If [[GNU/Linux]] = [[Linux|GNU/Linux]] = [[Linux]] (link-wise) and GNU/Linux is the most common kind of Linux then why do you care? To me it's similar to [[fish|wet fish]] vs [[fish]]. It's absurd that this has gone on for so damn long. Mike92591 ( talk) 04:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The page WP:JIMBOSAID is devoted to evaluating the nature Jimbo's personal input on specific content-related matters. Please take that part of the discussion over there.-- Factwhen ( talk) 07:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a better analogy would be the Persian Gulf/ Arabian Gulf naming controversy. We will most likely never reach agreement on the "correct" name, so we use the one most commonly used in the english speaking world (Persian Gulf, Linux) with mention and redirect of the alternative. Zarniwoot ( talk) 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Surely, there is already a guideline on this issue, which has been discussed to extreme lengths now, in the form of our naming conventions. Namely, the guideline is to use the name which is most commonly used around the world. We did various comparisons in the past, and Prolog provided some examples above. Linux is the more common form used, and GNU/Linux isn't. Why is this still being discussed?-
Localzuk
(talk)
22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
To add to this discussion here I found a good reason that would motivate the use of the word Linux. This comes from the Linux Mark Institute which collects money for Linus Torvalds.
I am a commercial entity (for example, a company, partnership or sole proprietor, profit or non-profit) selling software-related goods or services and using the word "Linux" in the entity’s name. Do I need to apply for a sublicense?
Yes, because you are using Linux as part of a trademark in connection with software-related goods or services. Software-related goods are computer programs and systems, or packages bundling software with tools, utilities, hardware, etc. Software-related services are services that deploy, document, facilitate the use of, or enhance computer programs and systems.
Even if you don’t use Linux as part of the entity’s name, if the entity has a product or service (whether sold or given away for free) that uses "Linux" in its name, you still need a sublicense for the use of the word Linux in the name of the products or services.
Taken from
Linux Mark Institute
http://www.linuxmark.org/faq.php#I_am_a_commercial_entity_a_company
Midnightcrow (
talk)
21:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"...the Linux Mark Institute which collects money for Linus Torvalds."
Well for the lazy ones READ the article called Linux article section Copyright and naming
"...the Linux Mark Institute sent out a number of letters to distribution vendors requesting that a fee be paid for the use of the name, and a number of companies have complied."
Midnightcrow ( talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
'[Torvalds] was bound in 2005 by United States trademark law to take active measures to enforce the trademark.'
If the license is "free" who pays the cost of the license procedure? How does the LMI finance itself? The LMI website says ONLY approved requests will get a "free" license. Midnightcrow ( talk) 16:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Many of the editors who want to force the use of the word Linux to refer to software that is not even part of the Linux kernel at all have never shown that they are not part of the LMI or what you now mention the Linux foundation. This is very relevant because there are many in wikipedia who have been editing articles in a way to lead people to believe that they should use the word Linux to call software that has no relationship with the Linux kernel. It makes sense that if you lead the public to believe that a certain software that is not Linux should be called Linux they will at one point want to use that "Linux" word. Then they will find that they will need to ask for a license that until now you have failed to prove is absolutely free in all cases. What is your relationship to the Linux foundation or the LMI? Who finances the Linux foundation then?
Midnightcrow ( talk) 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
This particular licensing debate is not relevant to the Linux vs GNU/Linux naming controversy. What the thing called Linux is, is the point. Not who owns a trademark. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
: Midnightcrow ( talk) 06:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
On another point, is it only me, or does Midnightcrow seem to have a similar kind of "rant" style to Bald Eeagle and Lightedbulb (both of which have been blocked now for sockpuppetry)? ~~ [Jam] [talk] 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well get used to it. It is obvious that when a dispute is not settled the discussions will continue for a long time as they should. Many people like you would like that no one expresses a point of view contrary to yours and then you will consider that as proof of agreement with your ideas and expressions in this case that "Linux" is the right word to use to call the UNIX like system that uses the GNU userland programs in conjunction with a kernel program known as "Linux". To call the entire operating system just "Linux" may be popular among many people but that doesn't mean that an Encyclopedia is forced to do the same. An Encyclopedia is not just a place where "popular" ideas or words find an echo and non "popular" names are not mentioned at all. If we followed that flawed logic then we would never mention in an encyclopedia the scientific names of plants or animals for example because they are not "popular" words. What kind of Encyclopedia is that that only uses "popular" words? A true Encyclopedia has to seek and spread the truth and be objective when describing the topics covered. It should strive to be as much scientific as possible.
Since the main components at work in the operating system some like to call "Linux" come from the GNU project and that without these GNU programs even the creation of the "Linux" kernel itself would never have been possible it is correct to use the name GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system using GNU components plus the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel owes its existence to the GNU C compiler. Without it the so called "Linux" kernel would have never existed. Many of you here say that we should call the entire thing Linux because it is thanks to Linux according to you that this operating system became popular. But then would Linux have existed without GNU? Could Linus Torvalds have created HIS kernel without the GNU C compiler? Wouldn't it be right to say then that GNU is the right name for the entire operating system because without the previous existence of GNU Torvalds could have never created (with the help of a lot of programmers collaborating over the Internet) his kernel? Besides that if we took out all the GNU programs and just kept the "Linux" kernel would we still have a REAL and useful operating system? Would it still be "popular"???
Midnightcrow ( talk) 00:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)