![]() | 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 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 |
The most common family of operating systems is GNU/Linux. Android is another family. Other families are based on µlibc and other operating system runtimes. Because of this, this page should be moved to GNU/Linux because it talks about the operating system based on the GNU runtime system and runtime libraries: Glibc, GOMP, GNU binutils, GNU Coreutils. I advocate for a dedicated page for each of the operating systems which have Linux as their kernel, as already has Android. Then, move the page Linux Kernel to Linux. The other less known OSes using a different combination of runtime + Linux could be put into a section inside the new Linux article. Filiprino ( talk) 14:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
GNU/Linux has come up again at the Unix article. I hope it is appropriate to discuss here even though it's at a different article, I figured the editors watching this page would be the most aware. Caco13 first did a global replace of Linux with GNU/Linux, which I reverted, and Abhilash Mhaisne reverted me. Now Abhilash has taken up the argument on my user page. From a quick look here I can see it comes up often and has already been hashed out (at least with no consensus for a change). I would appreciate it if I could pass this off to interested parties here as it's not a dispute I really wish to take up. Proponents of the change may find less resistance at a different article than if they tried to do it here. —DIYeditor ( talk) 23:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Specifically in section titled "Market share and uptake" and subsection "Web Servers" there is a reference using "W3Cooks". The citation referring to "W3Cooks" does not direct to a relevant reference any more. An quick web search does not find any decent equivalent reference. Suggest that this statement be removed or updated with a reference to a cache of the page at the retrieval date. Siphayne ( talk) 15:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The titles of computer programs are to be written with italicized text. This includes the individual editions of Microsoft's prevalent operating system (OS), such as Windows 10. And Unix and Linux are to be italicized, when each word refers to its respective OS. Yet, Wikipedia's manual of style does not specify how we are to set the names of overall families of operating systems, in type. This article is full of references to various types and forms of information-technology media, as well as to the things which embody the shared elements that link these inter-related things together. When I read this article, I do not know which names and titles merit italicization, and which do not. Is the name of a "shell" to be italicized? What about a "kernel" or a "library" or a "family" or a "module" or any of the dozens of other concepts that this article treats? Publishers and publications with a focus on Information Technology (IT) must have already sorted these matters out, and developed and applied cohesive sets of rules that greatly increased the ease by which readers could comprehend such a technical topic. Right now, this article is so dense with undifferentiated names and titles of IT works and concepts that it is hard to understand their hierarchies and relationships. An editor with knowhow must apply an effective system of italicization upon the many Information Technology works and concepts that are found in this article, the sooner the better. catsmoke ( talk) 13:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Linux. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
ftp://ftp.oreilly.de/pub/poster/oreilly_linux_poster.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3301105877.htmlWhen 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) 21:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
It is inaccurate to say that it was released on the year 1991. That is the date of Linux. The release notes of version 0.01 can be found here. Filiprino ( talk) 01:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Halfway through the opening paragraph it takes a right turn out of nowhere. We have two sentences that form a clear, concise synopsis of Linux that would flow beautifully into the next paragraph which gets broken up by, "Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name. The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system family, as well as specific distributions, to emphasize that most Linux distributions are not just the Linux kernel, and that they have in common not only the kernel, but also numerous utilities and libraries, a large proportion of which are from the GNU project. This has led to some controversy." This is shoehorned in. It would fit better after the 4th paragraph which names 11 Linux distributions, 5 of which contain the word "Linux." But putting it there really highlights two problems: it's doesn't have enough info to give the reader any indication of why we're suddenly mentioning the Free Software Foundation, and it's inaccurate: the controversy isn't because they use the name GNU/Linux, it's because they consider themselves authorities on its naming and demand that everyone else call it GNU/Linux as well. So the blurb needs to be reworked, but I'm coming up blank on wording. Ideas? 2601:18B:8200:1040:F8FD:E01A:41A8:C3EA ( talk) 00:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I made this improvement myself but it got reverted.
Tux is the mascot of the Linux kernel, which this article is explicitly not about. This is like using the United States flag in relation to the Americas. It seems to me that we are trying to have our cake and also eat it with regard to how the subject matter is referenced in Wikipedia. -- Sisgeo ( talk) 00:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Sisgeo. This article should not be showing Tux as an Operating System logo. It is used by the kernel. You can see it used in Linux web site. Filiprino ( talk) 01:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with Sisgeo. The fact that the public associates Tux with Linux as a whole is irrelevant. The Australian public consider Vegemite to be a symbol of Australia, but we wouldn't put the Vegemite logo in the info box as the main image for Australia. HappyGod ( talk) 05:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like more GNU/Linux rubbish. I don't see a problem with showing Tux on this page, since the kernel is what is common to all variants of Linux. There are not votes on Wikipedia, there is WP:CONSENSUS. —DIYeditor ( talk) 07:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This new section was just added and deals with a new code of conduct for Linux kernel developers, plus the associated politics in the Linux kernel dev community surrounding that. I think it is written and referenced fine, just that it doesn't belong here, but in Linux kernel instead, since it is specific to that subject. There is already some information on it there, although it could be expanded. We don't report kernel developer politics here, as this is a high-level article on the Linux biosphere as a whole and doesn't get into that level of specific minutia. I removed it with an edit summary to that effect and the OP reverted it saying, "...Without the Kernel there can be no operating system. Hence though specific to the kernel development mainline, the controversy affects all Linux users and thus belongs herein." Since anything that affects the kernel affects the larger Linux world (distros, etc) then this is an argument to merge that article back into this one. I don't think that is a good reason to include this new section in this article. I propose moving the section to Linux kernel, where I believe it belongs. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
. The reason being that a kernel is responsible for allocating any resource to any program running in the OS, so a mass withdrawal of code from the kernel not only cripples the kernel but also whatever runs on top of it. Also the withdrawal of the GPLv2 licensed code would mean that effective on the judgement, the kernel would need to be patched to remove those portions, or the linux foundation would need to pay to license the withdrawn bits to not be in breach of Copyright. Since linux is distributed as free software and underlies much of the internet, thi might result in a massive disruption affecting not just kernel developers.
Ethanpet113 (
talk)
02:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)master
, without the potential for instability. And if things weren't well modularized, it could take a while. And open source isn't known for being well modularized. So I don't know what the aftermath would be like if there was a legal issue, I and some of the developers in the citations are fairly certain that removing code "en bloc" would cripple and disrupt operation, until the removed bits could be implemented.
Ethanpet113 (
talk)
03:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)The todo list for this page says
improve the criticism section. Criticism of Linux has mysteriously disappeared over time. (Compare the current article to the "article milestones" listed on this page. Also see the revision history of Criticism of Linux.)"
There doesn't actually to be a criticism section, so it can't really be improved- although there is some criticism in the body of the page. The criticism section is usually prominent on other pages often appearing before the further reading section. Here it seems to have been forked into its own page, and a link included in the see also section. Should there be a summary section for criticism with
linked, or is the current layout acceptable?
Ethanpet113 ( talk) 04:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The text currently reads
Torvalds has stated that he trademarked the name only to prevent someone else from using it.
IANAL, but it seems to me that that is generally the purpose of a trademark, to prevent someone else from using it; there's no use in pointing this out. Shouldn't this read "to prevent someone else from trademarking it"? Unfortunately it is unsourced, otherwise I could have simply checked the source. Digital Brains ( talk) 19:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
See here: https://lwn.net/Articles/655914/
I wander, does this "suckyness" also apply to Android? I admit, I just haven't checked.. and while TTS is only an "application" (or the reverse, speech-to-text), I assumed it was fairly good now in Android, but that would be proprietary Google Now (and Siri, Cortana for others). E.g. are these technologies good in Android, but only in a proprietary form, but what about those included in free software AOSP, that may or may not still be used. And if they are good (or not..), can they be used in "regular" Linux? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comp.arch ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I still do not understand why you are using Linux as the name of the article devoted to the full operating system instead of GNU+Linux. Following the same pattern the macOS article should be called XNU. Source: OSX Internals. Image of macOS stack. GNU is the equivalent to Darwin libraries and syscalls while Linux is the equivalent to Mach (kernel) plus BSD kernel parts, that is, Linux is equivalent to XNU. It would be more logical to have this article talking about Linux and then an article for each operating system using Linux as its kernel. For instance, Android already exists. The Linux page would serve as pointers to the rest of pages. This article creates confusion and forgets an historical fact: the fork of the GNU C library. Only during three years calling Linux the whole operating system made sense. History of glibc and Linux libc (it is a blog post with references). Using the most common result in Google does not make sense. Additionally it is an ad populum fallacy. Filiprino ( talk) 23:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I am adding my "vote" (even though it is only informal here) to make this a 6-1 discussion in favor of changing the nomenclature to the appropriate "GNU/Linux". MOS:LINUX's Talk:Linux/Name consensus discussion and vote of this debate dates to a 2008 vote where the turnout was unfortunately the complete opposite of all the discussions on the page before the vote: everywhere I look before the vote people were supporting GNU/Linux and not Linux!!! The vote however was 8-0 in favor of just calling it Linux. I would like to add my vote in this discussion: GNU/Linux is the name of the (class of) operating system(s) which use the Linux kernel. Altanner1991 ( talk) 06:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Overwhelming majority of WP:RS refer to Linux kernel with GNU as Linux. Activism to credit rms or FSF is not a valid argument here. —DIYeditor ( talk) 12:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a few points that seem obvious and natural to me, without any need to point to [WP:thisorthat]. As seen above, they can be contradictory, and can be abused to defend a weak position.
(1) A somewhat common term used to refer to something should be the title, even if that use is technically wrong, provided it is unambiguous.
(2) If various people each encounter that term referring to different somethings, whether in new or old documents, each of those people can and should expect Wikipedia to have an article or articles which will faithfully explain all such meanings of the term within the contexts of each of those encounters, including the current and historical meanings. Ideally, either the definitions are all covered in one article, or the article should choose one meaning to define and link to the disambiguation page for the others. This one evolved into doing much of both, which is OK, but the first paragraph says it is intended to define only one usage of the term, and that doesn't match the title. I agree that this Article is broken in this regard, and that the title could easily solve all these problems as suggested above with "Linux (operating systems)". Given the strong resistance to this extremely simple suggestion (which I don't understand, in spite the rationalizations above), I also agree with many of the correct, but much more laborious solutions suggested above.
(3) Regardless of the title, if the common usage of the term is incorrect, like "Kleenex", the article defining such term should begin by noting the technical incorrectness, and address it in the body, and it should provide a technically correct, alternative term. The title can be "Kleenex"; we can't make people stop calling it a "Kleenex"; however, it is the ethical duty of the author to provide and even promote the more correct term such as "facial tissue". I don't understand the resistance to this. Just because a term is popularly used ambiguously and incorrectly doesn't mean we also must do so. Why do some in the Wikipedia community despise using the term GNU/Linux? It's the truth. It's correct. It's unambiguous. It's the accepted term of the relevant scientific communities. It reflects historical fact. What makes it such a dirty word?
(4) If the author(s) of an article wish to use the popular term throughout the article in place of a correct term simply due to familiarity, that's fine, as long as the article expressly states such continued use, and the term is not ambiguously used to mean anything else in the article. In this article, we could add "for the sake of simplicity, the term 'Linux kernel' is used to refer to the kernel originally developed by Linus Torvalds for the GNU OS, and the term "Linux" refers to GNU/Linux operating systems"; of course, the article would have to be religious about clarifying any other use of the term "Linux" in the article, and should not use that term when referring to systems that use a different kernel with the same GNU OS, or vice versa, etc. Otherwise, the article's definition of the term gets muddled and even becomes false. It's valid to argue that "Linux" should be used for the title and throughout the article instead of GNU/Linux because it is the commonly accepted and/or popular term for a family of OSes; just remember that ChromeOS, MAC OS, Android, Google Nest and smartwatches are NEITHER commonly accepted as nor popularly referred to as "Linux" operating systems. Oh, wait, but that is in contradiction with three of the first five paragraphs, which indicate "Linux" is not a family of operating systems, but any electronic device with Linux (the kernel) in it. Hmmm... So even within the article, the refusal to accept a more accurate term makes it impossible for the article to define "Linux".
(5) This article is "muddled" at best, and the first paragraph is false. It's impossible for one thing to be based on another which didn't exist. Linux the OS is NOT "based" on the Linux kernel. Rather, the kernel was based on the OS, initiated by Linus and completed by multiple authors to fit the "Linux" GNU OS, in place of GNU's kernel (and I think the extra comma erroneously indicates that the whole family of OSes was created by Linus Torvalds). The first sentence of this article exposes the author's bias against the facts (more activism?). Numerous articles and postings on the Web which I've seen paraphrase this article's heading, resulting in false statements that are then perpetuated throughout the Internet and the real world, claiming Linux was invented by Linus. Linus played a fractional but momentously pivotal role in the first complete "Linux" operating system and he deserves his props; the rest was GNU and FSF, made up of dozens or hundreds of other equally valuable people who produced the other 99.9% of "Linux", and it's unethical and contradictory to historical facts to obscure and bury those other contributions. The truth should be celebrated.
(6) The bias gets more offensive in the 2nd sentence with an incendiary, unsubstantiated opinion: it claims that the FSF is "causing" controversy, However, the citations provided do not indicate controversy; rather they provide some clarification and history of the term Linux. Who is this author that they should decide which is the cause and which is the effect? I would say The news media and journalists caused the "controversy". Maybe the author wasn't around in the industry when it happened. Any "controversy" existed before the FSF articles referenced by the author. The media misquoted, abbreviated and misapplied the term back in the 1990s, and that's what the public heard of course, and so it continues to be used that way today. For a more accurate, less political article, refer to the disambiguation at the top of this article.
(7) I'm not a "GNU GUY" or an "FSF Actvist" as some of the impertinent posts above (and one or more of the authors of this article) would have readers believe, simply because I know what's correct and what's false and want Wikipedia articles to be truthful, accurate, and reliable -- more informative, not less. I don't care much if people say Ubuntu is Linux -- I do it, too. Call it Kleenex for all I care. As a software developer and system administrator, I believe the content of any article about technical subjects must be able to convey the facts correctly. The title and first few hundred words of this article, the most important, don't do that.
(8) All of these problems seem to come back to one issue: GNU/Linux is a dirty word to many Wikipedians, a political football, but we don't know what else to call it. Coder Steve ( talk) 20:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
In 1983, Richard Stallman began development of a free software operating system. Operating systems are complex things, and he could not hope to make the entire thing by himself. This is why the GNU operating system uses software developed by others, such as the X Window System, and the kernel Linux. Unfortunately, when the people working on the kernel Linux integrated it with the GNU operating system, they thought they were making an operating system called Linux. They were not. Out of courtesy, many of us say "GNU/Linux" or "GNU + Linux" because we recognise the good work those who program the kernel Linux are doing. However, if we so chose we could easily simply call it GNU, because that is what it is. It's unfortunate that a lot of the sources out there want to disagree with reality, because this allows anyone working on this article to then write in a way which also disagrees with reality, even though the actual true history is documented and available. It's an unfortunate series of events all around, really. DesertPipeline ( talk) 09:45, 15 April 2021 (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 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 |
The most common family of operating systems is GNU/Linux. Android is another family. Other families are based on µlibc and other operating system runtimes. Because of this, this page should be moved to GNU/Linux because it talks about the operating system based on the GNU runtime system and runtime libraries: Glibc, GOMP, GNU binutils, GNU Coreutils. I advocate for a dedicated page for each of the operating systems which have Linux as their kernel, as already has Android. Then, move the page Linux Kernel to Linux. The other less known OSes using a different combination of runtime + Linux could be put into a section inside the new Linux article. Filiprino ( talk) 14:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
GNU/Linux has come up again at the Unix article. I hope it is appropriate to discuss here even though it's at a different article, I figured the editors watching this page would be the most aware. Caco13 first did a global replace of Linux with GNU/Linux, which I reverted, and Abhilash Mhaisne reverted me. Now Abhilash has taken up the argument on my user page. From a quick look here I can see it comes up often and has already been hashed out (at least with no consensus for a change). I would appreciate it if I could pass this off to interested parties here as it's not a dispute I really wish to take up. Proponents of the change may find less resistance at a different article than if they tried to do it here. —DIYeditor ( talk) 23:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Specifically in section titled "Market share and uptake" and subsection "Web Servers" there is a reference using "W3Cooks". The citation referring to "W3Cooks" does not direct to a relevant reference any more. An quick web search does not find any decent equivalent reference. Suggest that this statement be removed or updated with a reference to a cache of the page at the retrieval date. Siphayne ( talk) 15:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The titles of computer programs are to be written with italicized text. This includes the individual editions of Microsoft's prevalent operating system (OS), such as Windows 10. And Unix and Linux are to be italicized, when each word refers to its respective OS. Yet, Wikipedia's manual of style does not specify how we are to set the names of overall families of operating systems, in type. This article is full of references to various types and forms of information-technology media, as well as to the things which embody the shared elements that link these inter-related things together. When I read this article, I do not know which names and titles merit italicization, and which do not. Is the name of a "shell" to be italicized? What about a "kernel" or a "library" or a "family" or a "module" or any of the dozens of other concepts that this article treats? Publishers and publications with a focus on Information Technology (IT) must have already sorted these matters out, and developed and applied cohesive sets of rules that greatly increased the ease by which readers could comprehend such a technical topic. Right now, this article is so dense with undifferentiated names and titles of IT works and concepts that it is hard to understand their hierarchies and relationships. An editor with knowhow must apply an effective system of italicization upon the many Information Technology works and concepts that are found in this article, the sooner the better. catsmoke ( talk) 13:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Linux. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
ftp://ftp.oreilly.de/pub/poster/oreilly_linux_poster.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3301105877.htmlWhen 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) 21:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
It is inaccurate to say that it was released on the year 1991. That is the date of Linux. The release notes of version 0.01 can be found here. Filiprino ( talk) 01:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Halfway through the opening paragraph it takes a right turn out of nowhere. We have two sentences that form a clear, concise synopsis of Linux that would flow beautifully into the next paragraph which gets broken up by, "Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name. The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system family, as well as specific distributions, to emphasize that most Linux distributions are not just the Linux kernel, and that they have in common not only the kernel, but also numerous utilities and libraries, a large proportion of which are from the GNU project. This has led to some controversy." This is shoehorned in. It would fit better after the 4th paragraph which names 11 Linux distributions, 5 of which contain the word "Linux." But putting it there really highlights two problems: it's doesn't have enough info to give the reader any indication of why we're suddenly mentioning the Free Software Foundation, and it's inaccurate: the controversy isn't because they use the name GNU/Linux, it's because they consider themselves authorities on its naming and demand that everyone else call it GNU/Linux as well. So the blurb needs to be reworked, but I'm coming up blank on wording. Ideas? 2601:18B:8200:1040:F8FD:E01A:41A8:C3EA ( talk) 00:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I made this improvement myself but it got reverted.
Tux is the mascot of the Linux kernel, which this article is explicitly not about. This is like using the United States flag in relation to the Americas. It seems to me that we are trying to have our cake and also eat it with regard to how the subject matter is referenced in Wikipedia. -- Sisgeo ( talk) 00:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Sisgeo. This article should not be showing Tux as an Operating System logo. It is used by the kernel. You can see it used in Linux web site. Filiprino ( talk) 01:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with Sisgeo. The fact that the public associates Tux with Linux as a whole is irrelevant. The Australian public consider Vegemite to be a symbol of Australia, but we wouldn't put the Vegemite logo in the info box as the main image for Australia. HappyGod ( talk) 05:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Sounds like more GNU/Linux rubbish. I don't see a problem with showing Tux on this page, since the kernel is what is common to all variants of Linux. There are not votes on Wikipedia, there is WP:CONSENSUS. —DIYeditor ( talk) 07:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This new section was just added and deals with a new code of conduct for Linux kernel developers, plus the associated politics in the Linux kernel dev community surrounding that. I think it is written and referenced fine, just that it doesn't belong here, but in Linux kernel instead, since it is specific to that subject. There is already some information on it there, although it could be expanded. We don't report kernel developer politics here, as this is a high-level article on the Linux biosphere as a whole and doesn't get into that level of specific minutia. I removed it with an edit summary to that effect and the OP reverted it saying, "...Without the Kernel there can be no operating system. Hence though specific to the kernel development mainline, the controversy affects all Linux users and thus belongs herein." Since anything that affects the kernel affects the larger Linux world (distros, etc) then this is an argument to merge that article back into this one. I don't think that is a good reason to include this new section in this article. I propose moving the section to Linux kernel, where I believe it belongs. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
. The reason being that a kernel is responsible for allocating any resource to any program running in the OS, so a mass withdrawal of code from the kernel not only cripples the kernel but also whatever runs on top of it. Also the withdrawal of the GPLv2 licensed code would mean that effective on the judgement, the kernel would need to be patched to remove those portions, or the linux foundation would need to pay to license the withdrawn bits to not be in breach of Copyright. Since linux is distributed as free software and underlies much of the internet, thi might result in a massive disruption affecting not just kernel developers.
Ethanpet113 (
talk)
02:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)master
, without the potential for instability. And if things weren't well modularized, it could take a while. And open source isn't known for being well modularized. So I don't know what the aftermath would be like if there was a legal issue, I and some of the developers in the citations are fairly certain that removing code "en bloc" would cripple and disrupt operation, until the removed bits could be implemented.
Ethanpet113 (
talk)
03:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)The todo list for this page says
improve the criticism section. Criticism of Linux has mysteriously disappeared over time. (Compare the current article to the "article milestones" listed on this page. Also see the revision history of Criticism of Linux.)"
There doesn't actually to be a criticism section, so it can't really be improved- although there is some criticism in the body of the page. The criticism section is usually prominent on other pages often appearing before the further reading section. Here it seems to have been forked into its own page, and a link included in the see also section. Should there be a summary section for criticism with
linked, or is the current layout acceptable?
Ethanpet113 ( talk) 04:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The text currently reads
Torvalds has stated that he trademarked the name only to prevent someone else from using it.
IANAL, but it seems to me that that is generally the purpose of a trademark, to prevent someone else from using it; there's no use in pointing this out. Shouldn't this read "to prevent someone else from trademarking it"? Unfortunately it is unsourced, otherwise I could have simply checked the source. Digital Brains ( talk) 19:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
See here: https://lwn.net/Articles/655914/
I wander, does this "suckyness" also apply to Android? I admit, I just haven't checked.. and while TTS is only an "application" (or the reverse, speech-to-text), I assumed it was fairly good now in Android, but that would be proprietary Google Now (and Siri, Cortana for others). E.g. are these technologies good in Android, but only in a proprietary form, but what about those included in free software AOSP, that may or may not still be used. And if they are good (or not..), can they be used in "regular" Linux? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comp.arch ( talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I still do not understand why you are using Linux as the name of the article devoted to the full operating system instead of GNU+Linux. Following the same pattern the macOS article should be called XNU. Source: OSX Internals. Image of macOS stack. GNU is the equivalent to Darwin libraries and syscalls while Linux is the equivalent to Mach (kernel) plus BSD kernel parts, that is, Linux is equivalent to XNU. It would be more logical to have this article talking about Linux and then an article for each operating system using Linux as its kernel. For instance, Android already exists. The Linux page would serve as pointers to the rest of pages. This article creates confusion and forgets an historical fact: the fork of the GNU C library. Only during three years calling Linux the whole operating system made sense. History of glibc and Linux libc (it is a blog post with references). Using the most common result in Google does not make sense. Additionally it is an ad populum fallacy. Filiprino ( talk) 23:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I am adding my "vote" (even though it is only informal here) to make this a 6-1 discussion in favor of changing the nomenclature to the appropriate "GNU/Linux". MOS:LINUX's Talk:Linux/Name consensus discussion and vote of this debate dates to a 2008 vote where the turnout was unfortunately the complete opposite of all the discussions on the page before the vote: everywhere I look before the vote people were supporting GNU/Linux and not Linux!!! The vote however was 8-0 in favor of just calling it Linux. I would like to add my vote in this discussion: GNU/Linux is the name of the (class of) operating system(s) which use the Linux kernel. Altanner1991 ( talk) 06:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Overwhelming majority of WP:RS refer to Linux kernel with GNU as Linux. Activism to credit rms or FSF is not a valid argument here. —DIYeditor ( talk) 12:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a few points that seem obvious and natural to me, without any need to point to [WP:thisorthat]. As seen above, they can be contradictory, and can be abused to defend a weak position.
(1) A somewhat common term used to refer to something should be the title, even if that use is technically wrong, provided it is unambiguous.
(2) If various people each encounter that term referring to different somethings, whether in new or old documents, each of those people can and should expect Wikipedia to have an article or articles which will faithfully explain all such meanings of the term within the contexts of each of those encounters, including the current and historical meanings. Ideally, either the definitions are all covered in one article, or the article should choose one meaning to define and link to the disambiguation page for the others. This one evolved into doing much of both, which is OK, but the first paragraph says it is intended to define only one usage of the term, and that doesn't match the title. I agree that this Article is broken in this regard, and that the title could easily solve all these problems as suggested above with "Linux (operating systems)". Given the strong resistance to this extremely simple suggestion (which I don't understand, in spite the rationalizations above), I also agree with many of the correct, but much more laborious solutions suggested above.
(3) Regardless of the title, if the common usage of the term is incorrect, like "Kleenex", the article defining such term should begin by noting the technical incorrectness, and address it in the body, and it should provide a technically correct, alternative term. The title can be "Kleenex"; we can't make people stop calling it a "Kleenex"; however, it is the ethical duty of the author to provide and even promote the more correct term such as "facial tissue". I don't understand the resistance to this. Just because a term is popularly used ambiguously and incorrectly doesn't mean we also must do so. Why do some in the Wikipedia community despise using the term GNU/Linux? It's the truth. It's correct. It's unambiguous. It's the accepted term of the relevant scientific communities. It reflects historical fact. What makes it such a dirty word?
(4) If the author(s) of an article wish to use the popular term throughout the article in place of a correct term simply due to familiarity, that's fine, as long as the article expressly states such continued use, and the term is not ambiguously used to mean anything else in the article. In this article, we could add "for the sake of simplicity, the term 'Linux kernel' is used to refer to the kernel originally developed by Linus Torvalds for the GNU OS, and the term "Linux" refers to GNU/Linux operating systems"; of course, the article would have to be religious about clarifying any other use of the term "Linux" in the article, and should not use that term when referring to systems that use a different kernel with the same GNU OS, or vice versa, etc. Otherwise, the article's definition of the term gets muddled and even becomes false. It's valid to argue that "Linux" should be used for the title and throughout the article instead of GNU/Linux because it is the commonly accepted and/or popular term for a family of OSes; just remember that ChromeOS, MAC OS, Android, Google Nest and smartwatches are NEITHER commonly accepted as nor popularly referred to as "Linux" operating systems. Oh, wait, but that is in contradiction with three of the first five paragraphs, which indicate "Linux" is not a family of operating systems, but any electronic device with Linux (the kernel) in it. Hmmm... So even within the article, the refusal to accept a more accurate term makes it impossible for the article to define "Linux".
(5) This article is "muddled" at best, and the first paragraph is false. It's impossible for one thing to be based on another which didn't exist. Linux the OS is NOT "based" on the Linux kernel. Rather, the kernel was based on the OS, initiated by Linus and completed by multiple authors to fit the "Linux" GNU OS, in place of GNU's kernel (and I think the extra comma erroneously indicates that the whole family of OSes was created by Linus Torvalds). The first sentence of this article exposes the author's bias against the facts (more activism?). Numerous articles and postings on the Web which I've seen paraphrase this article's heading, resulting in false statements that are then perpetuated throughout the Internet and the real world, claiming Linux was invented by Linus. Linus played a fractional but momentously pivotal role in the first complete "Linux" operating system and he deserves his props; the rest was GNU and FSF, made up of dozens or hundreds of other equally valuable people who produced the other 99.9% of "Linux", and it's unethical and contradictory to historical facts to obscure and bury those other contributions. The truth should be celebrated.
(6) The bias gets more offensive in the 2nd sentence with an incendiary, unsubstantiated opinion: it claims that the FSF is "causing" controversy, However, the citations provided do not indicate controversy; rather they provide some clarification and history of the term Linux. Who is this author that they should decide which is the cause and which is the effect? I would say The news media and journalists caused the "controversy". Maybe the author wasn't around in the industry when it happened. Any "controversy" existed before the FSF articles referenced by the author. The media misquoted, abbreviated and misapplied the term back in the 1990s, and that's what the public heard of course, and so it continues to be used that way today. For a more accurate, less political article, refer to the disambiguation at the top of this article.
(7) I'm not a "GNU GUY" or an "FSF Actvist" as some of the impertinent posts above (and one or more of the authors of this article) would have readers believe, simply because I know what's correct and what's false and want Wikipedia articles to be truthful, accurate, and reliable -- more informative, not less. I don't care much if people say Ubuntu is Linux -- I do it, too. Call it Kleenex for all I care. As a software developer and system administrator, I believe the content of any article about technical subjects must be able to convey the facts correctly. The title and first few hundred words of this article, the most important, don't do that.
(8) All of these problems seem to come back to one issue: GNU/Linux is a dirty word to many Wikipedians, a political football, but we don't know what else to call it. Coder Steve ( talk) 20:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
In 1983, Richard Stallman began development of a free software operating system. Operating systems are complex things, and he could not hope to make the entire thing by himself. This is why the GNU operating system uses software developed by others, such as the X Window System, and the kernel Linux. Unfortunately, when the people working on the kernel Linux integrated it with the GNU operating system, they thought they were making an operating system called Linux. They were not. Out of courtesy, many of us say "GNU/Linux" or "GNU + Linux" because we recognise the good work those who program the kernel Linux are doing. However, if we so chose we could easily simply call it GNU, because that is what it is. It's unfortunate that a lot of the sources out there want to disagree with reality, because this allows anyone working on this article to then write in a way which also disagrees with reality, even though the actual true history is documented and available. It's an unfortunate series of events all around, really. DesertPipeline ( talk) 09:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)