![]() | 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 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
The edit page includes the comment "While /ˈlɪnʊks/ is Torvalds' pronunciation, /ˈlɪnəks/ is by far the most common pronunciation among English speakers and Wikipedia uses the most common pronunciation."
The post that started this paragraph violated Neutral Point of View, I think, by representing the opinion it reflects as fact while failing to support it with any references. I think the statement about "original research" violates Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability. A rule I read (somewhere on Wikipedia) states that Wikipedia content is not supposed to be based on original research -- that it must be someone else's research -- but this point is moot.
For this article, the only thing that should matter is Linus' pronunciation, since there is a recording made by the the inventor. No doubt, this sub-heading was started by someone (222.127.211.89) who didn't know this. Linus' pronunciation should be definitive, in any case. Here is a link to the voice recording he made and a photo of him: http://www.jx90.com/linux.html. Kernel.package ( talk) 05:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The history section is not that good ...
It seems to imply that for linux to use bash and such, i'd have to be GPL'd. As far as I know, that is not true ... Would someone more knowledgeable please comment ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cold Light ( talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean "it'd", "I'd", or someting else? Mike92591 ( talk) 19:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The abovementioned picture is called "Wikipedia's server with Linux". I see no evidence that this picture has something to do or is depicting wikipedia's servers. That may be my fault, though. Cheers, -- 77.186.152.227 ( talk) 19:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved to /Name#Requested move - October 2008, and section header changed to respect templated link from Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Alvestrand ( talk) 20:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems that this article is losing its focus. What is it actually about? It's not about the Linux kernel, because there is another article for that. What then? Every operating system that currently uses the Linux kernel? And every combination of those? (ie. "Linux distributions"). Is this article supposed to cover everything that people call Linux? Here is a list of all the things people might call Linux:
I think that is just too much to cover in one article. Debian GNU/Linux is so different to Android, and equally to DD-WRT. The only thing all of these things have in common is the Linux kernel. So it seems this article is about anything and everything that uses Linux, apart from Linux itself! The problem is that the general public seem to call anything that uses the Linux kernel, "Linux". "Linux distribution" is used pretty consistently to refer to a GNU/Linux distribution, though.
I would like to suggest that this page is disambiguated. This came up before in the talks about the name of the page. As it stands, neither "Linux" nor "GNU/Linux" are the correct names for the content on this page. Instead I think the content needs to be split into different pages: Linux kernel (already exists), Linux distribution (aka GNU/Linux distribution, but the former is most common) and Android (very significant now).
The page Embedded_Linux already exists, and while I'm not too sure about the content it shows that the disambiguation is already happening. At this rate we're just going to end up with a lot of redundancy unless this page is disambiguated. I think the suggestion was to turn it into a summary style article. I think this would be much better than the jack of all trades article it is trying to be now. -- Borb ( talk) 22:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this article should be about the kernel, Linux. This is very confusing. Please somebody do fix it! 85.131.31.100 ( talk) 17:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Who said that php and mysql is a part of Linux ecosystem? Who put the gnome mockups as screenshots of gnome 2.0? Looks like school noob tried to tell people about Linux. Please, make the article "about Linux", not about related things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redchrom ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why, but the History section had seriously devolved from something containing a lot of useful and interesting details about the History of this thing called Linux, into this, which was completely opaque, uninformative, over-sectioned, and directionless.
Folks, at some point you have to let go of the "OMG IT'S NOT A KERNEL" and "OMG IT'S NOT GNU" and focus on writing a good, interesting, informative article. Think about it from the perspective of showing the article to your barely-computer-literate mother. Would she understand? If you take out the historical context behind why Linux was created, then the History section itself becomes completely meaningless. Linking to a separate History of Linux article and leaving it at that isn't enough -- you still need to tell the story.
I've restored the History section to as it stood about a month ago. If you (and by you, I mainly mean User:Gronky, who is responsible for most of the edits here) believe that the History section should be short, uninformative and over-sectioned, please explain why here on the talk page.
Also, there seems to be some recent disagreement as to whether a "Year of the Linux desktop" section belongs here. I don't think it does. This might be an interesting topic to cover in a couple of sentences in the "Market share and uptake" section further down, but it's not vital to explaining the history of the operating system itself. Warren -talk- 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
We're still about 4k short of where we were before the history was rewritten (both literally and figuratively, so to speak), and I can't actually see what benefit this rewrite had.
The old version started with UNIX and included a reasonable level of detail on MINIX, both of which were very important predecessors of the system. WP:SUMMARY provides guidelines on how much of a section to leave when creating sub-articles - it says to leave about a third of the length of the split section in the summary article, not as little as one can get away with.
In addition, the entire Programming section seems to have vanished, and we seem to have gained the questionable image: GNU Linux.png, which doesn't appear to be of any established notability and comes from a site which uses Wikipedia as a source. As I don't see any rationale for these changes, I've restored the sections in question from where we were at the end of September. Edits should be discussed in detail before this is so heavily changed in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The section disappeared. I think it was notable enough to let it include.-- Kozuch ( talk) 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This should be removed again. Firstly, wikilinks should not be bolded in the article body. Secondly, the whole point of the lede is to act as a summary of the article: it's is implied that anything mentioned in the lede will be covered in more detail in the article body, and the table of contents makes it simple to find the section in question. As this link does not help to build the web by linking to other articles, I believe it should be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Since I see that Grandscribe has been changing most of the references from "Linux" to "Linux distributions" (which I support because it makes sense where he did) I started to wonder how is this article about something else than Linux distribution article? Why couldn't they be merged? Any strong argument against? man with one red shoe 09:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Would any editors here have an opinion if Wiki should retain knowledge of this small Linux based OS ? Power.corrupts ( talk) 14:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The first time I heard about Linux, I looked up this page and went away thinking that it was just a bunch of lines on a black screen. I think it would help fix a lot of misconceptions if we could put a screenshot of, say, the default Ubuntu installation, towards the top of the page. The first screenshot of a Linux distro is halfway down the page, and even half of that is Vista.
If nobody objects, I'll be bold... 116.232.244.113 ( talk) 09:29, 7 February 2009 (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 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
The edit page includes the comment "While /ˈlɪnʊks/ is Torvalds' pronunciation, /ˈlɪnəks/ is by far the most common pronunciation among English speakers and Wikipedia uses the most common pronunciation."
The post that started this paragraph violated Neutral Point of View, I think, by representing the opinion it reflects as fact while failing to support it with any references. I think the statement about "original research" violates Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability. A rule I read (somewhere on Wikipedia) states that Wikipedia content is not supposed to be based on original research -- that it must be someone else's research -- but this point is moot.
For this article, the only thing that should matter is Linus' pronunciation, since there is a recording made by the the inventor. No doubt, this sub-heading was started by someone (222.127.211.89) who didn't know this. Linus' pronunciation should be definitive, in any case. Here is a link to the voice recording he made and a photo of him: http://www.jx90.com/linux.html. Kernel.package ( talk) 05:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The history section is not that good ...
It seems to imply that for linux to use bash and such, i'd have to be GPL'd. As far as I know, that is not true ... Would someone more knowledgeable please comment ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cold Light ( talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean "it'd", "I'd", or someting else? Mike92591 ( talk) 19:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The abovementioned picture is called "Wikipedia's server with Linux". I see no evidence that this picture has something to do or is depicting wikipedia's servers. That may be my fault, though. Cheers, -- 77.186.152.227 ( talk) 19:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved to /Name#Requested move - October 2008, and section header changed to respect templated link from Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Alvestrand ( talk) 20:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems that this article is losing its focus. What is it actually about? It's not about the Linux kernel, because there is another article for that. What then? Every operating system that currently uses the Linux kernel? And every combination of those? (ie. "Linux distributions"). Is this article supposed to cover everything that people call Linux? Here is a list of all the things people might call Linux:
I think that is just too much to cover in one article. Debian GNU/Linux is so different to Android, and equally to DD-WRT. The only thing all of these things have in common is the Linux kernel. So it seems this article is about anything and everything that uses Linux, apart from Linux itself! The problem is that the general public seem to call anything that uses the Linux kernel, "Linux". "Linux distribution" is used pretty consistently to refer to a GNU/Linux distribution, though.
I would like to suggest that this page is disambiguated. This came up before in the talks about the name of the page. As it stands, neither "Linux" nor "GNU/Linux" are the correct names for the content on this page. Instead I think the content needs to be split into different pages: Linux kernel (already exists), Linux distribution (aka GNU/Linux distribution, but the former is most common) and Android (very significant now).
The page Embedded_Linux already exists, and while I'm not too sure about the content it shows that the disambiguation is already happening. At this rate we're just going to end up with a lot of redundancy unless this page is disambiguated. I think the suggestion was to turn it into a summary style article. I think this would be much better than the jack of all trades article it is trying to be now. -- Borb ( talk) 22:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this article should be about the kernel, Linux. This is very confusing. Please somebody do fix it! 85.131.31.100 ( talk) 17:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Who said that php and mysql is a part of Linux ecosystem? Who put the gnome mockups as screenshots of gnome 2.0? Looks like school noob tried to tell people about Linux. Please, make the article "about Linux", not about related things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redchrom ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why, but the History section had seriously devolved from something containing a lot of useful and interesting details about the History of this thing called Linux, into this, which was completely opaque, uninformative, over-sectioned, and directionless.
Folks, at some point you have to let go of the "OMG IT'S NOT A KERNEL" and "OMG IT'S NOT GNU" and focus on writing a good, interesting, informative article. Think about it from the perspective of showing the article to your barely-computer-literate mother. Would she understand? If you take out the historical context behind why Linux was created, then the History section itself becomes completely meaningless. Linking to a separate History of Linux article and leaving it at that isn't enough -- you still need to tell the story.
I've restored the History section to as it stood about a month ago. If you (and by you, I mainly mean User:Gronky, who is responsible for most of the edits here) believe that the History section should be short, uninformative and over-sectioned, please explain why here on the talk page.
Also, there seems to be some recent disagreement as to whether a "Year of the Linux desktop" section belongs here. I don't think it does. This might be an interesting topic to cover in a couple of sentences in the "Market share and uptake" section further down, but it's not vital to explaining the history of the operating system itself. Warren -talk- 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
We're still about 4k short of where we were before the history was rewritten (both literally and figuratively, so to speak), and I can't actually see what benefit this rewrite had.
The old version started with UNIX and included a reasonable level of detail on MINIX, both of which were very important predecessors of the system. WP:SUMMARY provides guidelines on how much of a section to leave when creating sub-articles - it says to leave about a third of the length of the split section in the summary article, not as little as one can get away with.
In addition, the entire Programming section seems to have vanished, and we seem to have gained the questionable image: GNU Linux.png, which doesn't appear to be of any established notability and comes from a site which uses Wikipedia as a source. As I don't see any rationale for these changes, I've restored the sections in question from where we were at the end of September. Edits should be discussed in detail before this is so heavily changed in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The section disappeared. I think it was notable enough to let it include.-- Kozuch ( talk) 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
This should be removed again. Firstly, wikilinks should not be bolded in the article body. Secondly, the whole point of the lede is to act as a summary of the article: it's is implied that anything mentioned in the lede will be covered in more detail in the article body, and the table of contents makes it simple to find the section in question. As this link does not help to build the web by linking to other articles, I believe it should be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Since I see that Grandscribe has been changing most of the references from "Linux" to "Linux distributions" (which I support because it makes sense where he did) I started to wonder how is this article about something else than Linux distribution article? Why couldn't they be merged? Any strong argument against? man with one red shoe 09:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Would any editors here have an opinion if Wiki should retain knowledge of this small Linux based OS ? Power.corrupts ( talk) 14:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The first time I heard about Linux, I looked up this page and went away thinking that it was just a bunch of lines on a black screen. I think it would help fix a lot of misconceptions if we could put a screenshot of, say, the default Ubuntu installation, towards the top of the page. The first screenshot of a Linux distro is halfway down the page, and even half of that is Vista.
If nobody objects, I'll be bold... 116.232.244.113 ( talk) 09:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)