Talk:Linux

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Localzuk (talk | contribs) at 09:03, 6 April 2006 (→‎GNU/Linux). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Template:FAOL

Archived Talk:

Failed good article

This article has some really good sections and certainly has sufficient content to make it a good article. But at times the article suffers from a wandering focus and poor writing.

One example of poor writing is the statement "but it is commonly used to describe entire Unix-like operating systems (also known as GNU/Linux) that are based on the Linux kernel combined with libraries and tools from the GNU Project and other sources". A better phrasing may be "but it is commonly used to describe entire operating systems based on the Linux kernel" and leaving the GNU/Linux discussion to a new sentence.

As for the wandering focus, the article has sections dedicated to "Running Windows applications", "Configuration", "Demonstration", "Development efforts", "Installation", etc. All of these things can be mentioned but often they are talked about in far too much detail when a passing mention (or link to a subpage) would be more than sufficient. The article needs to focus on the main points of Linux.

Cedars 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing redundancy and sensibly splitting this

This article does not require every single mention of graphical interfaces to be accompanied with a disclaimer that they are based on X. It does not need random commentary on other GNU kernels. It does not need every paragraph to have three sets of parentheses containing edge cases or random qualifiers in order to satisfy the anonymous user current skulking around various contentious Unix pages and getting into holy wars about KDE or *BSD or whether the shiny Tux is nicer than "Tux Classic". It does not need links to anime schoolgirls. it does not need the disclaimer "nearly all" to every mention of GNU until someone comes up with a single instance of a Linux distro which doesn't contain any GNU libraries. I intend to keep reducing this pointless fluff until such point as reading over it aloud no longer induces oxygen deprivation.

The first half of this article is fine. The second is in need of destruction. I really reckon that comparisons to other operating systems, installation, GNOME / KDE discussion and so on should be shifted elsewhere. This page isn't meant to be the single canonical resource for GNU/Linux information on the entire internet; if people can follow a link to this article, they can follow a link to the bits they're interested in as well. Objective comparisons are so not Wikipedia's strongpoint anyway. Thumper 12:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you, but the nature of WP is that the changes will probably need to be made incrementally. Let's start hacking. -- Gnetwerker 16:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tux

Okay, it looks like we've got some edit warring over Tux for some reason or another. Why do we keep changing it? Isopropyl 00:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone wants a prettier version of Tux, Lord only knows why, but they think that the official image isn't good enough. Since there is no good reason to use an unofficial image when we have the official one, I keep fixing it. 65.94.60.61 01:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with anon. Use the official one. What possible reason can there be to use a different logo? -lethe talk + 01:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any concern or issue with what image of Tux gets used. I have an issue that the anon keeps using WP:NPA-violating edit summaries, makes other changes while reverting the Tux image, and makes changes without discussing them here. If he wants to be taken seriously, he can get an account and establish some credibility. -- Gnetwerker 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An account is not a prerequisite for editing at Wikipedia. Some of us will take him seriously even if he prefers not to assign himself a silly made-up internet handle. -lethe talk + 02:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a prerequisite it wouldn't be an issue, because he wouldn't be able to edit. Anonymous users have to stand on their contributions just like everyone else, and contributions from this IP recently have been almost exclusively devoted to contentious Unix flame wars (like the Qt licence). Regarding the Tux, the only person reverting is the anonymous holy warrior, so as far as I'm concerned the status quo is newtux. And it's prettier, so I'm going to keep changing it while I clean up this silly overqualified junk. Thumper 10:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick with the official logo. Alternative versions of the logo are appropriate for the Tux article, but not here. And as for "overqualified junk" your edits have in some cases made the text incorrect. For example, the FSF does not argue that the system should be called GNU/Linux because of the quantity of GNU software in the system; in fact they explicitly say that this is not the crux of their argument. I don't care which side of the argument you are on, it's never right to put words in someone's mouth. Second, in the history section it makes no narrative sense to begin talking about GNU without at least a clause of the sentence introducing how GNU fits into the Linux history. Third, the Tux article itself says that Tux is the kernel mascot (which is how it began, at least), so we shouldn't contradict that article here without at least some explanation. —Steven G. Johnson 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, use the official logo. If you're going to reword the GNU section then **reword it** - it's abysmally written just now because of the sheer number of compromise clauses. And as for the logo, the article *starts* with information on exactly what Linux refers to, so Tux natually follows. The qualifier adds nothing to the article at all. I'm fed up having whole chunks of this reverted due to nits when the original is unreadable. Thumper 17:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly true that revert warring can test one's patience. -lethe talk + 17:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, children. Play nice. Seriously though, let's not lose our cools over simple wording. Isopropyl 18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sheer number of compromise clauses?" The structure of the (two line) sentence in question is "Since foo, which bar, then baz." Hyperbole does not help your argument. —Steven G. Johnson 18:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had meant to refer to the article as a whole. I refuse to allow people to insert pointless micro-clarifications all over the place because they aren't prepared to step back and see if the article as a whole presents the whole story. This history thing is a prime example: I cannot begin to imagine how people feel that this is a "non sequitur" because it doesn't helpfully remind the viewer what article he's reading within the first sentence! GNU/Linux redirects here anyway, so it's not like it must be presupposed that the reader has heard of Linux but not GNU. Chris Cunningham 19:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course the reader knows she is reading an article about "Linux". That's precisely why it's not good style for the section on history to just start by talking about GNU without explaining the connection to Linux. Intentional obtuseness does not help your arguments, nor does your somewhat arrogant intention to "refuse to allow people" to edit the page in a way you don't like. —Steven G. Johnson 02:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is on the Linux operating system, which is implicitly a GNU-based system. It is not an article on the Linux kernel. So long as the History section *as* *a* *whole* presents the whole story then it is sufficient, and it makes sense to start the story from the beginning. The disclaimer wording is patronising and stylistically atrocious.

Redesign/Cleanup?

I'm a complete anon nub who is too shy to get a user account, but just looking at the article maybe we should...

  • See Also cleanup. Formatting is shoddy in IE, and do we even need ALL the Wikibooks entries with Sisterlinks?
  • Turn "Running Windows applications" into a section for Mac and other OS's as well? Possibly subbing under Applications?
  • Remove the Anaconda reference in installation or mention other install packages?
  • Get a English major in here to clean up all the grammatical errors? (Hey look, I made a joke!)
  • Generalize categories more, such as "Market Share" into "Range of Use" (Horrible term too, I know)
  • Expand the Support section?
  • Expand development of Linux to include programming on Linux?
  • NPOV issues with GNU/Linux and the SCO lawsuit?
  • Get a bit less agressive with rv and the comments?

~Avillia Ealitian. (With less anon!)

That guy who is too lazy to find other relavant conversation's and rather wishes to make his own.

Avillia 20:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avillia The anon has some good points. I support many of them, esp. the NPOV and warring over GNU/Linux, the general poor quality of the writing (which I put down to over-editing), and the need for categories that are more well thought-out. -- Gnetwerker 22:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then someone needs to Be Bold and start moving stuff around. I wish people would contribute to this instead of reverting every second edit. Chris Cunningham 23:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1: remove info which belongs elsewhere

The Configuration section is pointless. Linux is noted as being Unixish and things which don't differ much from Unix shouldn't need to be noted again. The discussion in this section is largely about different distros. It's best kept entirely to the distros section. Chris Cunningham 23:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Step 2: SCO

I'm moving this to the bottom of the article and trimming the references as it's an article fragment. Even if the case does eventually have repercussions it's currently little more than trivia. Chris Cunningham 23:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Step 3: Desktop comparisons

I'm attacking this with a chainsaw. Too much repetition. No content. Please DO NOT JUST REVERT THIS. The section on Applications needs to be expanded with more usage examples, it's nowhere near complete just now. Chris Cunningham 00:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your being WP:BOLD, but saying "Don't revert" is like waving a red flag. -- Gnetwerker 00:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was more of a plea for sanity given the last few days than an attempt to impose myself. Sorry. Chris Cunningham 01:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNU-NPOV-History.

Nuked the first paragraph of history, why the heck are we starting a section on Linux with a block of text about the GNU's previous OS efforts? Incorporate into the section about Linux and the GNU Project if you feel the need, I didn't see much of a loss as a result.

Avillia 02:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why we need to move this article to GNU/Linux. People are being mislead by the title, thinking that the topic is the Linux kernel, when in fact it is “the popular operating system that some call GNU and others call Linux” — a somewhat fuzzy concept accurately referred to as “GNU/Linux”.

Whatever the title, this article needs to discuss the early history of GNU because that is an important part of the history of “Linux” (i.e., “GNU/Linux” — not just the kernel).

That’s why the article on ExxonMobil starts by talking about Exxon and Mobil, even though the topic of the article is ExxonMobil, not Exxon or Mobil. You can’t just say, “X shall henceforth be known as Y” and then forget about X. In the case of GNU/Linux, a lot of people are even objecting to the “GNU shall henceforth be known as Linux” part, which is the cause of the GNU/Linux naming controversy. — Daniel Brockman 04:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your commit message:

Why are we starting a paragraph about Linux history with the prior efforts of the GNU project? Deleting, merge with GNU/Linux if you want. Don't go rev-happy.

Well, GNU/Linux redirects to Linux. Confusing, eh? Do you agree that it would be better to move the article to GNU/Linux? (See the arguments above, under the heading “GNU/Linux” for recent previous discussion.) — Daniel Brockman 05:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone who wants to know about Linux is, usually, going to mean the operating system, not the kernel. If we put it under GNU/Linux, we risk a loss of information. And, of course, calling it GNU/Linux has, I believe, NPOV issues, considering the whole controversey. Maybe we can give the Kernel itself and it's dev a paragraph in history, and link to Linux_(Kernel). Also, as to the edit, I'm sitting here thinking about changes to the article, because it could use cleanup (Add the cleanup template?), and it occurs to me...Why are we talking about the GNU shell, the GNU's attempts as kernels, et-al, at the start of a Linux article? Be Bold, and all. ALSO, we -do- have a GNU article about GNU operating systems, including those based on Solaris, BSD, and Linux. Maybe that needs to come into play somehow? --Avillia 05:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Also, when I said GNU/Linux, I meant the "Linux and the GNU Project" sub. I couldn't fit the whole thing in the comment. That's something else we need to keep in mind, maybe we could talk about the GNU's intertwinement with Linux there to some extend? Just brainstorming.[reply]

Well, someone who wants to know about Linux is, usually, going to mean the operating system, not the kernel. — That’s why we should make Linux redirect to GNU/Linux.

If we put it under GNU/Linux, we risk a loss of information. — What do you mean by this?

And, of course, calling it GNU/Linux has, I believe, NPOV issues, considering the whole controversey. — We’ve been through this. Yes, calling it GNU/Linux favors one side of the debate and thus violates NPOV. But calling it Linux also favors one side of the debate and thus also violates NPOV. You simply cannot apply the principle of NPOV here, as you are forced to choose exactly one title (articles cannot have more than one title). Therefore, we have to choose the title based on some other reasoning. I argue that GNU/Linux is more accurate than Linux. It is definitely more precise and unambiguous.

Yes, this is exactly what the controversy is about in the first place. Unfortunately, we are forced to favor one side. I argue that we have a better excuse for favoring RMS’s side — not because he is correct (I do not want to get into the actual debate), but because using the title “GNU/Linux” makes practical sense for Wikipedia. Some policy document I quoted above says, paraphrasing, that when in doubt, one should choose the least ambiguous title. This principle applies perfectly in this case.

and it occurs to me...Why are we talking about the GNU shell, the GNU's attempts as kernels, et-al, at the start of a Linux article? — Because the article is not just about the Linux kernel. The article is about the popular family of free Unix clones that most call Linux, some call GNU, and others call GNU/Linux. You cannot deny the heritage of modern Linux distributions just because the article title fails to contain the word “GNU”.

we -do- have a GNU article about GNU operating systems, including those based on Solaris, BSD, and Linux. Maybe that needs to come into play somehow? — Given that the second sentence of the article on GNU reads as follows,

The GNU system, combined with a third-party kernel called Linux, is one of the most widely used operating systems in the world, commonly known as simply "Linux".

it seems very strange not to start a “history of Linux” section with a history of GNU: We are claiming, on the article on GNU, that “Linux” is the GNU system. — Daniel Brockman 08:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the operating system, and whether you call it GNU/Linux or not it *is* largely GNU-based and wouldn't exist without GNU. I eventually plan to kill off anything kernel-specific (including things like the name origin) and merge it with the kernel article. The history section must start with the foundation of GNU.
In the interests of not annoying the Linus weenies who would go reverting things if the article were moved to GNU/Linux I suggest that it should move to Linux (operating system). For the time being the original history intro needs to go back before this article converges on the kernel one any further. Chris Cunningham 08:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure that moving to Linux (operating system) would help. It might actually make it worse, since the “(operating system)” qualification suggests that the topic is about something very specific. Given the confusion about the meaning of “operating system”, lots of people are going to think the article is specifically about the Linux kernel. “Oh, this article is just about the operating system — not the distributions at large.” — Daniel Brockman 09:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that the line between distros and separate operating systems is blurry anyway, I very much doubt that people would fail to understand the difference. In DOS days yes, but now an operating system is generally regarded as a complete desktop by the lay user. And most people don't really care what the topic title is anyway so long as the article is what they were looking for. Chris Cunningham 09:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me. I was suggesting that people might think “Linux (operating system)” were specifically about the Linux kernel, because people commonly identify the “kernel” and the “operating system”. This could make it worse because “Linux” is not a specific, qualified title, which avoids suggesting that the article is specifically about the kernel. In particular, I was not trying to differentiate between operating systems and distributions — quite the opposite. — Daniel Brockman 11:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is an accurate observation. People don't mistake "the windows XP operating system" for "the windows NT kernel". When I was at school there was obviously a difference between a machine's operating system and the environment presented to the user, but this is definitely not the case now. As for any hypothetical confusion, this is why we have disambig tags.
Proposed: This article shifts to Linux (operating system), GNU/Linux and Linux both redirect there, with a disambig for Linux (kernel), Linux (comet) and Linux (washing powder). At that point as much kernel stuff as possible is moved to the kernel article and this article is refocussed to take it as a given that the subject is a combination of the Linux kernel and GNU code. Chris Cunningham 12:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Need to fix sub-pages on talk. Chris Cunningham 12:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And so my first Be Bold has failed horribly. Alas. --Avillia 17:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be dishearted. If you look about halfway up the talk page, someone else did exactly the same thing earlier on. It's important to remember that it wasn't reverted because it was necessarily a bad idea for the article, just because it didn't fit with how the article would need to unfold to differentiate it from the kernel article. Chris Cunningham 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory text and pointless, petty nitpicking for nitpicking's sake

The word "Linux" is used in this article to mean one thing: "The operating system which is formed from the Linux kernel when combined with programs and libraries from the GNU project and elsewhere". The only explanation required is a quick explanation of what the word "Linux" means in this article, and only reason the paragraph is needed at all is because of Furious Rage from the gnu-or-not camps who can't see past the label.

It is being removed because I would be embarrassed to have handed the current article in as English homework at school, not for ideological reasons. There's a whole article devoted to the naming controversy, so even giving the issue lip service here is being generous. The amount of time spent bickering over something is very rarely directly proportional to its importance anyway, see "Shiny Tux".

I would respectfully suggest that the longer version be added to the naming article or Wiktionary, where it belongs. Chris Cunningham 19:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the page back

if any of that disambig fluff comes back because the page title is ambiguous I'm going to scream. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumperward (talk • contribs)

Made pathetic attempt at sig forgery in line with history. --Avillia 00:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we go from here?

Right, first half looks much better than it used to. It's concise, fluid and informative. I wish the same could be said for the second half. It reads like a fan article. I'm tempted to axe the whole running-Windows-apps section and move it into its own article with a minor link from somewhere, but where? What direction should the second half take? It has to be focussed on Linux the operating system without rambling on about GNOME and KDE or making unsubstantiated claims about market share. Chris Cunningham 23:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the second half of this article needs some serious work/cleanup. As for the running-Windows-apps I'd reccommend probably just making a new article for that and just note it in see also (make sure there isn't one already though :)). I mean, right now there are 15 sections - that is A LOT of sections for a article. "Portability of Linux" should probably be moved to the kernel article as right now it is slightly confusing (why is the operating system more or less portable then the kernel?). The programming section probably should be culled or at least cleaned up to make it obvious why it is more relevant then say, spreadsheets on linux, as right now it is awfully generic - I mean you could say basically ALL that stuff about unix in general - if you were talking about kernel programming it would make more sense, but then it would probably need to go in the kernel article... lots of other stuff that needs work too... I'll try to help out as well when I can :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 06:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New article Running Windows applications on Linux. Not linked from here yet, although I don't know if it needs to be. I've started by simply killing off large chunks of the second section which were mostly advocacy. Chris Cunningham 16:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've really attacked the installation section now. The pondering phrasage is mostly gone and it's a sensible length. Chris Cunningham 16:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNU/Linux

"Linux" is the kernel

"GNU/Linux" is the whole system

see : http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by mtmtmt (talk • contribs)

Please stop dragging up the same old arguments again and again. This has been discussed to death already. The naming conventions call for the common usage to be used - the common usage, no matter how wrong you think it is, is Linux. Plain and simple.-Localzuk (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linux&oldid=47224622"