![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This article is hand cranking definition lists, rather than just using the available definition lists. I edited the Special-purpose distributions section to how it should be... But do not have the time to do the rest. See Help:List#Definition lists for more info. wangi 12:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*cat inputfile | sed -e "s/'''//g" | sed -e 's/^*/;/g' > outfileAny_Key
to be consistent (the Debian and Gentoo-based distributions are just that. They are not DPKG or Portage-base), I am splitting off RHEL-based as a separate category and move the relevant of the RPM-based distributions to RHEL-based, and linking to the RHEL clones article. Riaanvn 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Asterisk@home changed their name to trixbox a few months ago. I edited it to say the new name. 24.45.161.236 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It has already been stated at the top of the article that it needs some cleanup, and also in the foreword it says this article should be merged with Linux_distribution, so is anyone planning on taking care of this, otherwise I would be more than happy to take care of it. netkid91 01:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I was acutally planning on doing the merge the other way around, List of Linux Disto's -> Linux Distribution, I'll go ahead and do some cleanup while I'm at it. Sorry for taking so long to reply, been kind of busy, I'll make a page in my user sandbox and get started, expect to see a update soon netkid91 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Edit: See my current edits on My Temp Workspace - Edited 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that this article should be merged with the Linux distribution one, if anything I think that the "List of" article and the "Comparison of" article would be the logical choices for a merge -- it seems like it would be pretty easy to take the "comparison" content and add it to the list. But I don't think that people who want to read an article about the concept of a "distribution" really want to have a gigantic long list of every Linux distribution appended to the bottom of the article. The list, IMO, is definitely better kept separate. Maybe the "introduction" section (the area before the ToC) in the List article should get moved somewhere else, but I think it's misguided to put the list into some other article. Therefore I guess I'm against the merge as currently proposed, but I would strongly support moving the 'comparison' content into the list article. Kadin2048 23:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a merge. But I do think the introductory paragraphs are pointless because they belong in Comparison of Linux distributions if anything. This article should just be kept as an organized list with short descriptions of each distro. I'm going to be bold and change the introduction to something short but sweet. Sether 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) I've just been bold in chopping the intro back, and I think it's improved. However the whole categorisation issue is fraught - several distros could go under multiple headings. Many of the descriptions *do* read like advts, but with some work they could be brought under control - I think its handy to have such a descriptive take on each as opposed to the technical approach of the Comparison_of_Linux_distributions.
Most of the information is redundant with Comparison of Linux distributions. I think it should be merged. Mike92591 19:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Vector Linux and MEPIS both offer fully-functional products free of charge on public mirrors to which they link on their respective websites, with some additional software available in paid versions. Novell and SUSE engage in an arguably similar practice but present the free and paid distributions as different products rather than versions, where paying customers are buying a higher expectation of software maturity and entering into a client-vendor relationship. Linspire and Linux XP stand out in offering no products free of charge. Use of the term "free" in the context of Linux is potentially very inflammatory, and the use of "partially commercial" is begging for questionable categorizations.
commercial: A money making endeavor that involves a corporation or other formalized group of workers and management working toward the production of goods or services to participate in an economy. [1]
It says in the SUSE article that it is, but here it isn't listed as such. Anyone? -smb
I'm pretty sure that it isn't and has never been.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE_Linux Says right there that it was a translation of Slackware
i was going through the list of distros based on debian and kubuntu was not listed there.
""This article reads like an advertisement. Please clean it up to conform to a Category:Wikipedia style guidelines of quality, and to make it neutral in tone.""
This tag has been added now. Sometimes, I sometimes feel like so, because the way of some parts of explanation is too long. This page should be only a list of distributions with simple description of each. I think long and extra exlpanations should go to individual pages of their distributions. User-green 11:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree definitions just too long, use of Okkams razor may help. Only key features have to be mentioned, not the lists of subdistributions. eg. Ubuntu. The problem is what feature is "key" enought : Free/Commertial, package system, intended user auditory. ect. Any_Key 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
While I am cleaning the article and merging it with Linux Distribution I will keep this in mind. netkid91 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with detailed descriptions? 76.183.213.20 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
There is an error with the page redirect that puts the “expert|linux article” tag when you go to the redirect page “List of Linux distros” (case-sensitive), but when you go directly to the page “List of Linux distributions” (possibly case-sensitive) the tag is gone; one fix that I have found is to click “article” near the top of the page. 76.183.213.20 01:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this section should only have fictional distros that have actually been documented outside of Wikipedia, and not just any silly idea some nerd wants to add to Wikipedia. So, I propose we remove Clux, PaperOS, and Ferkel. I didn't mention DarkOPS Omega because I actually found a mention of someone looking for it on an Ubuntu forum. Although, this person did hear about it by reading this page, so maybe it should be removed too. Also CLUX should definitely be removed as Clux is a real thing. Computational Linux/Unix CLUster. Of course Jesux and Yellow Hat should remain as those are genuine Linux hoaxes. Dan0 00 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
"Lesbian GNU/Linux" has got to go. 76.183.213.20 06:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to make some changes. But before I begin I want to be sure that it is not immediately reverted and thus all the work was for nothing. So here are some suggestions I would like to implement. What do you think about this:
Advantage: It can be seen at once which distributions are most closely related to each other. This makes it easier to choose and to be sure that the chosen distro is practically identical to several other popular distros (important if the chosen distribution is discontinued or seldom updated).
Further I would like to mark each distro with a little K, G, or X to indicate that the default desktop is KDE, GNOME, or Xfce. Der Eberswalder 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you incorporate your idea into a new page and leave this page in the current state of being listed in alphabetical order. Ravtux 02:34, 21 May 2007
I think it is impractical to make a letter after each distro to indicate GNOME, KDE, Xfce, IceWM, Fluxbox, Enlightenment or any other desktop. Colors would be nice. I will group distros with same desktop environment together and add colors later if there is no opposition. -- Der Eberswalder 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. 76.183.213.20 03:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as there is already a wikipedia entry on it, I added Aurora_SPARC_Linux to the list under Fedora. I could have sworn I did this before.-- D3matt 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the cleanup tag because it looks OK IMHO. If anyone wants to add it back of course they can. RJFJR 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Should live CDs have their own category? Their use is usually different from an installed distro. It would break the categorization by package format more, but live CDs are their own kind of specialist distro. Jman 18:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the linux review link as it doesn't correlate to this particular page but may be better suited to a general linux informative page? both the tag and the link are both still there but they've been commented out. Gaurdro ( talk) 01:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
In Nov 2007 there was an edit that removed about 25 items in one swoop (the link is to the DIFF). The edit summary provided was "Removing distributions that are only external links". I tend to agree with this edit as consistent with WP:NOT#LINK, but I wanted to put the question to the editorial group here as to whether this particular edit meets general consensus. I am prompted to ask because the redirect target for EHUX in this list-article was eliminated as part of the edit; EHUX was merged into this article and the title redirected as part of an AFD action in June 2007.
At this time,
EHUX is tagged for
WP:PROD-deletion based on the target missing from this article; I will be taking it to
WP:RFD momentarily and hope to address the larger question of "contingent deletion" which this case illustrates - i.e. an AFD action is taken that is intended to retain some article content through merger, but the content is later deleted as an editorial decision at the target article, effectively leading to an ultimate deletion outcome for the AFD. This gets into the thorny region of whether merged content should be treated differently from directly written content ... which leads to
creep and I don't really want to go there, but I'll stick my toe in to test the waters quicksand.
Thanks for considering the question of whether the edit labeled as "removing distributions that are only external links" meets with consensus of editors currently paying attention to this article. Having that answer would be helpful.
Regards User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I found out about SliTaz yesterday, and love it. I just created a Wikipedia page about it, and wanted to add it to this page ... but i don't know under which category to place it. It was apparently built from scratch and is not based on a previous distro. If anyone can figure out how to get it on this page, please do. It's a terrific Linux distro.
- Monz ( talk) 20:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, i didn't see the "Others" category before :) . I've put SliTaz there; if anyone knows more feel free to move it, fix it, etc.
- 68.8.18.44 ( talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This page has Fedora being put under other when there is a Fedora-base! Why is that? Fedora uses the RPM base and has the same base as its self.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to write on it myself, but would love to see inclusion of PhatLinux, an actual [former?] distro that booted from within Windows. (I first tried Linux in this version, years ago.) If PhatLinux is now an extinct or unsupported distro, then, perhaps, it, and other extinct or unsupported distros could be grouped together in a separate List? www.PhatLinux.com seems no longer to be "out there." Some initial info from 2000 on Phat (and other "boot-from-within-Windows" distros) may be found at http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/print/1458/ Xenophon777 ( talk) 13:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the entries could be in separate page "Histrorical Linux distributions (discontinued)" for those now ceased Jaalto 2005-11-24
IPs 217.202.172.29 , 217.201.144.29 and 217.201.23.208 have added "Tiger Linux" to the list multiple times. I'm concerned about notability as well as neutrality (all edits have used phrases and words like "easy-to-use", "reliable", et cetera). Is this a legitimate distribution or shameless advertising? Is it notable enough to be included in the list or can it be deleted on sight?
I've deleted their edits at least twice, but since the edits are so persistent I've taken the neutral route this time and simply edited the section to be more neutral until I can get a definite answer from a third party. ZappyGun ( talk) 13:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
mopslinux.org 195.122.231.182 ( talk) 06:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a note in the page about making the merge. Since no one had created a discussion item, here it is. I think they should be merged. anyone else have an opinion on this matter? Gaurdro ( talk) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The distro 'Feather Linux' is listed twice, under Debian and under Knoppix (fixed this). Can some people volenteer to be maintainers of this article, ie. check for mistakes like this? -- Aronzak ( talk) 11:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
please add ttylinux. it is an active very small linux distribution. http://ttylinux.org/ 24.251.158.189 ( talk) 05:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there a new Ubuntu variant called Lubuntu? I just learned of it today in the Ubuntu article. As you can see, it already has its own article. Apparently the first version was in October 2008. Maybe we should add it to the list? I don't think it's a complete version yet, though. What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dullstar ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
their most current release is a beta. the intent of the distro is not to be only a live cd, but that is all the current beta is. there is already a wikipedia article here: Lubuntu-- 69.107.87.153 ( talk) 02:45, 3 November 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This article is hand cranking definition lists, rather than just using the available definition lists. I edited the Special-purpose distributions section to how it should be... But do not have the time to do the rest. See Help:List#Definition lists for more info. wangi 12:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
*cat inputfile | sed -e "s/'''//g" | sed -e 's/^*/;/g' > outfileAny_Key
to be consistent (the Debian and Gentoo-based distributions are just that. They are not DPKG or Portage-base), I am splitting off RHEL-based as a separate category and move the relevant of the RPM-based distributions to RHEL-based, and linking to the RHEL clones article. Riaanvn 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Asterisk@home changed their name to trixbox a few months ago. I edited it to say the new name. 24.45.161.236 21:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It has already been stated at the top of the article that it needs some cleanup, and also in the foreword it says this article should be merged with Linux_distribution, so is anyone planning on taking care of this, otherwise I would be more than happy to take care of it. netkid91 01:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I was acutally planning on doing the merge the other way around, List of Linux Disto's -> Linux Distribution, I'll go ahead and do some cleanup while I'm at it. Sorry for taking so long to reply, been kind of busy, I'll make a page in my user sandbox and get started, expect to see a update soon netkid91 02:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC) Edit: See my current edits on My Temp Workspace - Edited 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that this article should be merged with the Linux distribution one, if anything I think that the "List of" article and the "Comparison of" article would be the logical choices for a merge -- it seems like it would be pretty easy to take the "comparison" content and add it to the list. But I don't think that people who want to read an article about the concept of a "distribution" really want to have a gigantic long list of every Linux distribution appended to the bottom of the article. The list, IMO, is definitely better kept separate. Maybe the "introduction" section (the area before the ToC) in the List article should get moved somewhere else, but I think it's misguided to put the list into some other article. Therefore I guess I'm against the merge as currently proposed, but I would strongly support moving the 'comparison' content into the list article. Kadin2048 23:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the need for a merge. But I do think the introductory paragraphs are pointless because they belong in Comparison of Linux distributions if anything. This article should just be kept as an organized list with short descriptions of each distro. I'm going to be bold and change the introduction to something short but sweet. Sether 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC) I've just been bold in chopping the intro back, and I think it's improved. However the whole categorisation issue is fraught - several distros could go under multiple headings. Many of the descriptions *do* read like advts, but with some work they could be brought under control - I think its handy to have such a descriptive take on each as opposed to the technical approach of the Comparison_of_Linux_distributions.
Most of the information is redundant with Comparison of Linux distributions. I think it should be merged. Mike92591 19:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Vector Linux and MEPIS both offer fully-functional products free of charge on public mirrors to which they link on their respective websites, with some additional software available in paid versions. Novell and SUSE engage in an arguably similar practice but present the free and paid distributions as different products rather than versions, where paying customers are buying a higher expectation of software maturity and entering into a client-vendor relationship. Linspire and Linux XP stand out in offering no products free of charge. Use of the term "free" in the context of Linux is potentially very inflammatory, and the use of "partially commercial" is begging for questionable categorizations.
commercial: A money making endeavor that involves a corporation or other formalized group of workers and management working toward the production of goods or services to participate in an economy. [1]
It says in the SUSE article that it is, but here it isn't listed as such. Anyone? -smb
I'm pretty sure that it isn't and has never been.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE_Linux Says right there that it was a translation of Slackware
i was going through the list of distros based on debian and kubuntu was not listed there.
""This article reads like an advertisement. Please clean it up to conform to a Category:Wikipedia style guidelines of quality, and to make it neutral in tone.""
This tag has been added now. Sometimes, I sometimes feel like so, because the way of some parts of explanation is too long. This page should be only a list of distributions with simple description of each. I think long and extra exlpanations should go to individual pages of their distributions. User-green 11:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree definitions just too long, use of Okkams razor may help. Only key features have to be mentioned, not the lists of subdistributions. eg. Ubuntu. The problem is what feature is "key" enought : Free/Commertial, package system, intended user auditory. ect. Any_Key 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
While I am cleaning the article and merging it with Linux Distribution I will keep this in mind. netkid91 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with detailed descriptions? 76.183.213.20 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
There is an error with the page redirect that puts the “expert|linux article” tag when you go to the redirect page “List of Linux distros” (case-sensitive), but when you go directly to the page “List of Linux distributions” (possibly case-sensitive) the tag is gone; one fix that I have found is to click “article” near the top of the page. 76.183.213.20 01:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this section should only have fictional distros that have actually been documented outside of Wikipedia, and not just any silly idea some nerd wants to add to Wikipedia. So, I propose we remove Clux, PaperOS, and Ferkel. I didn't mention DarkOPS Omega because I actually found a mention of someone looking for it on an Ubuntu forum. Although, this person did hear about it by reading this page, so maybe it should be removed too. Also CLUX should definitely be removed as Clux is a real thing. Computational Linux/Unix CLUster. Of course Jesux and Yellow Hat should remain as those are genuine Linux hoaxes. Dan0 00 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
"Lesbian GNU/Linux" has got to go. 76.183.213.20 06:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to make some changes. But before I begin I want to be sure that it is not immediately reverted and thus all the work was for nothing. So here are some suggestions I would like to implement. What do you think about this:
Advantage: It can be seen at once which distributions are most closely related to each other. This makes it easier to choose and to be sure that the chosen distro is practically identical to several other popular distros (important if the chosen distribution is discontinued or seldom updated).
Further I would like to mark each distro with a little K, G, or X to indicate that the default desktop is KDE, GNOME, or Xfce. Der Eberswalder 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you incorporate your idea into a new page and leave this page in the current state of being listed in alphabetical order. Ravtux 02:34, 21 May 2007
I think it is impractical to make a letter after each distro to indicate GNOME, KDE, Xfce, IceWM, Fluxbox, Enlightenment or any other desktop. Colors would be nice. I will group distros with same desktop environment together and add colors later if there is no opposition. -- Der Eberswalder 21:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. 76.183.213.20 03:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as there is already a wikipedia entry on it, I added Aurora_SPARC_Linux to the list under Fedora. I could have sworn I did this before.-- D3matt 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the cleanup tag because it looks OK IMHO. If anyone wants to add it back of course they can. RJFJR 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Should live CDs have their own category? Their use is usually different from an installed distro. It would break the categorization by package format more, but live CDs are their own kind of specialist distro. Jman 18:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the linux review link as it doesn't correlate to this particular page but may be better suited to a general linux informative page? both the tag and the link are both still there but they've been commented out. Gaurdro ( talk) 01:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
In Nov 2007 there was an edit that removed about 25 items in one swoop (the link is to the DIFF). The edit summary provided was "Removing distributions that are only external links". I tend to agree with this edit as consistent with WP:NOT#LINK, but I wanted to put the question to the editorial group here as to whether this particular edit meets general consensus. I am prompted to ask because the redirect target for EHUX in this list-article was eliminated as part of the edit; EHUX was merged into this article and the title redirected as part of an AFD action in June 2007.
At this time,
EHUX is tagged for
WP:PROD-deletion based on the target missing from this article; I will be taking it to
WP:RFD momentarily and hope to address the larger question of "contingent deletion" which this case illustrates - i.e. an AFD action is taken that is intended to retain some article content through merger, but the content is later deleted as an editorial decision at the target article, effectively leading to an ultimate deletion outcome for the AFD. This gets into the thorny region of whether merged content should be treated differently from directly written content ... which leads to
creep and I don't really want to go there, but I'll stick my toe in to test the waters quicksand.
Thanks for considering the question of whether the edit labeled as "removing distributions that are only external links" meets with consensus of editors currently paying attention to this article. Having that answer would be helpful.
Regards User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I found out about SliTaz yesterday, and love it. I just created a Wikipedia page about it, and wanted to add it to this page ... but i don't know under which category to place it. It was apparently built from scratch and is not based on a previous distro. If anyone can figure out how to get it on this page, please do. It's a terrific Linux distro.
- Monz ( talk) 20:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, i didn't see the "Others" category before :) . I've put SliTaz there; if anyone knows more feel free to move it, fix it, etc.
- 68.8.18.44 ( talk) 21:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This page has Fedora being put under other when there is a Fedora-base! Why is that? Fedora uses the RPM base and has the same base as its self.
I'm not knowledgeable enough to write on it myself, but would love to see inclusion of PhatLinux, an actual [former?] distro that booted from within Windows. (I first tried Linux in this version, years ago.) If PhatLinux is now an extinct or unsupported distro, then, perhaps, it, and other extinct or unsupported distros could be grouped together in a separate List? www.PhatLinux.com seems no longer to be "out there." Some initial info from 2000 on Phat (and other "boot-from-within-Windows" distros) may be found at http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/print/1458/ Xenophon777 ( talk) 13:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the entries could be in separate page "Histrorical Linux distributions (discontinued)" for those now ceased Jaalto 2005-11-24
IPs 217.202.172.29 , 217.201.144.29 and 217.201.23.208 have added "Tiger Linux" to the list multiple times. I'm concerned about notability as well as neutrality (all edits have used phrases and words like "easy-to-use", "reliable", et cetera). Is this a legitimate distribution or shameless advertising? Is it notable enough to be included in the list or can it be deleted on sight?
I've deleted their edits at least twice, but since the edits are so persistent I've taken the neutral route this time and simply edited the section to be more neutral until I can get a definite answer from a third party. ZappyGun ( talk) 13:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
mopslinux.org 195.122.231.182 ( talk) 06:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
There's a note in the page about making the merge. Since no one had created a discussion item, here it is. I think they should be merged. anyone else have an opinion on this matter? Gaurdro ( talk) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The distro 'Feather Linux' is listed twice, under Debian and under Knoppix (fixed this). Can some people volenteer to be maintainers of this article, ie. check for mistakes like this? -- Aronzak ( talk) 11:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
please add ttylinux. it is an active very small linux distribution. http://ttylinux.org/ 24.251.158.189 ( talk) 05:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there a new Ubuntu variant called Lubuntu? I just learned of it today in the Ubuntu article. As you can see, it already has its own article. Apparently the first version was in October 2008. Maybe we should add it to the list? I don't think it's a complete version yet, though. What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dullstar ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
their most current release is a beta. the intent of the distro is not to be only a live cd, but that is all the current beta is. there is already a wikipedia article here: Lubuntu-- 69.107.87.153 ( talk) 02:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)