Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Pronunciation again

I've added explication that Stallman's advocated pronunciation of "GNU/Linux" would in fact be "guh-NOO-slash-Linux" or "guh-NOO-plus-Linux" (and no, I'm not going to render that in IPA). But I can't find a solid reference for it. I can find lots of pages saying he favours "guh-NOO" as the pronunciation of "GNU", but none where he or the FSF actually do so. Not that I disbelieve it, I'd just like to be able to put a reference in. Anyone? - David Gerard 14:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest starting another holy war while the opportunity's still there!

Ahem. But jocularity aside, how about http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html:

"To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word `GNU' when it is the name of this project." (True, this only indirectly gives you "guh-NOO", but it was written by Stallman.)

And looking a bit further, I struck gold. This is from a speech Stallman made at NYU: "But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is "guh-NEW" -- pronounce the hard "G". If you talk about the "new" operating system, you'll get people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not new any more. [Laughter] But it still is, and always will be GNU -- no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake. [Laughter]" It includes a bit on the naming controversy to boot, how about that? :-) 131.155.69.249 14:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice one! Added - David Gerard 20:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

A new name: Algae

Has anyone suggested simply ending the controversy by introducing a new name for Linux and GNU's naming controversy?

Why not call it "LG" as in Linux/GNU - which sounds a lot like "Algae". Simple. Effective. Descriptive.

"Algae" would be an appropriate name for the operating system, as it continues to evolve and grow into related, independent children. It also ends the controversy altogether, by acknowledging a dispute exists by those who know about it. LG, Algae - what do you think?

If you like it, spread the word.

inigmatus 18:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

History

This section states:

"...which began the development of a complete Unix-like operating system composed entirely of free software in January 1984."

However, the article I was reading that linked to this particular article (GNU) notes:

"The GNU project was announced in September 1983 by Richard Stallman..."

Perhaps the author(s) of one or the other articles were percieving the original date in different ways (announcement vs. beginnin of work, etc), but it would be good to have these dates nicely in agreement accross the pages. I am placing this comment here with the Linux Naming Controversy page, as it links off of the primary GNU article. Dxco 07:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It is correct as worded, but somewhat confusing I agree. According to here and here the GNU project was announced in 1983 but work was not begun on it until 1984. This should be clarified at GNU. —Steven G. Johnson 19:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

article name: "controversy" or "debate"

I've realised that when I link to this article, it's to show the two sides of the naming debate. Then I looked at the article, and I see that the content is about the two sides of the debate. The name of the article says it's about "controvery" related to the debate, but it is not. Controversial is one of many words that could be used to describe the debate, but the defining character of this article is that it is about a debate.

Can I have comments on moving this article to GNU/Linux naming debate? (remember that the current name will become a redirect, so nothing will break and nothing will have to be changed, it's just matching the name to the content. Gronky 19:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

After going through a large sample of articles that link here, I've found that they are indeed pointing at what they hope is both sides of the debate and not the controversy related to the debate. In light of this, and in light of nobody objecting or correcting my comment, and in light of this article containing information about both sides of the debate and not the controversy related to the debate, I propose moving this article to GNU/Linux naming debate. Any objections?

Again I'd like to note that the only thing that will change is the name at the top of the page - GNU/Linux naming controversy will become a redirect, and nothing will be lost. History, and the Talk: page, and all that stuff will be retained and will move along with the article page. Appologies if I'm being too cautious about an uncontroversial action. Gronky 10:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

ok, I've gotten two night's sleep since I first posted the suggestion. So, since the article discusses a debate, and since the pages that link here do so to explain a debate, I will now move the page to GNU/Linux naming debate. One additional factor I just noticed is that the word "controversy" only appears twice in the article, and it doesn't feature at all in the first 4 paragraphs, so I'm pretty sure this is uncontroversial. Gronky 13:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Gronky 13:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There's not much point in talking about it if you're only going to wait two days for a response.

I think this was rather unnecessary and might even give people the notion that this is an acceptable place to have an actual active debate. ¦ Reisio 18:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Having the notion that any article page is "an acceptable place to have an actual active debate" indicates that the person has not yet grasped even the most fundamental concepts of Wikipedia. I have yet to encounter such a person, but I think only a person who has never edited Wikipedia could be so misinformed - and I'm certain that any such theorectical person would learn this fundamental concept very shortly after their first edit. Gronky 01:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverted unrename

The page was moved back to "controversy" without discussion or comment etc. etc. etc. So I've renamed the page back to "debate". Again, the reasons for calling the page "debate" are that the page contains information about a debate and the two sides of the debate, and articles that point to this page do so to point people toward the reasons on each side of the debate. Gronky 22:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Debate" implies a particular style of reasoned argument, of back and forth between two sides where they answer one another's points, that may or may not be a good description for this issue depending upon your point of view. "Controversy" is a much more general and, in this context, neutral term that encompasses, for example, cases where one side actively campaigns on an issue and the other side simply accepts the status quo. (I really fail to understand your argument against "controversy". Any article on a controversy should surely give the various sides, as well as the history, etcetera.) "Controversy" also seems to be more standard in Wikipedia articles on this sort of thing; e.g. Native American name controversy, Element naming controversy, and Hacker definition controversy. —Steven G. Johnson 23:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Note also that "GNU/Linux naming controversy" was the name under which this article was reviewed and accepted for featured-article status. And, from the discussion above, you seem to be completely alone in pushing for this inexplicable name change. —Steven G. Johnson 23:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"inexplicable" does a bad job of describing the above 7 or so paragraphs I spent explaining the change, but anyway...

Rather than stating what implications we each take from words, lets use dictionaries. www.dict.org says "debate" means "To contend for in words or arguments; to strive to maintain by reasoning; to dispute; to contest; to discuss; to argue for and against.", and it says that "controversy" means "Contention; dispute; debate; discussion; agitation of contrary opinions. Quarrel; strife; cause of variance; difference.".

Factoring out the similarities, the differences are that controversy focuses on the agitation, the strife, teh contention - and this articles doesn't focus on those things. It focuses on the arguments on either side, not the heat caused by the friction of the sides meeting.

Also, those other three articles you reference do not constitute a Wikipedia guide. If they are mistaken, then propagating that mistake so is the wrong course of action (that's "if", I don't know about them).

Articles on controversial topics should indeed give the various sides, history, etc. but that doesn't mean that all articles on controversial topics should be named "_controversy". Richard Stallman is controversial, but the article about his is called "Richard Stallman", not "Richard Stallman controversy". (you said "any article on a controversy", but I've explained already that this article isn't on the controversy, it's on the two sides of the thing/debate/argument/issue)

Lastly, yes, the article was started and featured under the name controversy. That name might have been correct at those times, but I'm commenting on the present, and presently it is not correct.

Now, all that said, one thing that occurred to me while writing this is that the article is about "naming". So actually there is no need for a further description. "GNU/Linux naming" would be correct, IMO. (as would "GNU+Linux operating system naming", although that might be a mouthful for some). What do you think about that? Gronky 13:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Name fixing again

(a continuation of a debate which is also the topic of the two-previous sections on this talk page)

It seems getting consensus on this will be difficult since few people are paying attention to this article nowadays. I do think it is important that the article carries a correct title, so I will summarise again the debate (sparse and drawn-out as it has been):

The name "GNU/Linux naming controversy" is incorrect, today, because:

1. it does not describe the content of the article (the article is about the two sides of the debate, not the controversy caused by those sides meeting)
2. it does not describe what is expected by those linking to this article (from observation of a large sample, I see that articles linking here do so to show the sides of the debate, not to show the controversy caused)

These have been my two points all-along, and nobody has disagreed with either. "GNU/Linux naming controversy" may have been correct in the very beginning. It also may have been correct when it was a featured article, although I doubt it (I will not delve into that point since the issue is what the correct name is today, not what the correct name would have been back then). Today, it is incorrect.

I disagree. You are misrepresenting the meaning and connotation of the words "controversy" and "debate" as explained above. No one is paying attention here as long as the status quo is maintained, because everyone but you agrees with the current title. —Steven G. Johnson 19:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, and I disagree with you, and I think you are misrepresenting those words. It seems you and I won't agree that "debate" is more accurate than "controversy". Note that the title you like is as un-cared for as mine. After I changed the title, it stayed changed for 17 days before you came along. This article is un-cared for in general.

What about "GNU/Linux naming"? Gronky 20:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Since most of the page is about the arguments and commentary on the issue, i.e. the controversy, that title doesn't seem as appropriate. (By the way, it achieved FA status in essentially its present form [1].) —Steven G. Johnson 01:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We have a problem. I agree with you that the page is about arguments (for and against), plus commentary - but I don't think "controversy" describes that in any way. Since I think this is important, and since we are getting nowhere, and since the chances of a consensus are near-zero, I'll put it on WP:RM and we'll see what others there think. Gronky 12:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The name I have proposed is "GNU/Linux naming debate". One person objected because one meaning of "debate" implies a certain formal argument competition, but that is only one meaning. Another reason is that some other articles have "controversy" in the title, but maybe they are actually about controversies (which would make them unlike this article) in which case those names would be right for those articles, but their names have no implications for this article. Another possibility is that those articles also have incorrect titles, in which case the correct thing to do is fix them rather than spreading the mistake. But these things are irrelevent.

For this article, at this current point in time, the current name is wrong and bad.

So, again, I propose improving it by changing it to "GNU/Linux naming debate". An alternative is "GNU/Linux naming".

The reason that I haven't forgotten about this is that I would like to contribute to the article, but each time I come to look at it I see that my contributions would be about the debate, but the current title says that this is not the correct place to add information about a debate, this is the place for adding information about controversy. The obvious option then is to start an article for the debate, but if I did that I would have to start by moving everything from this article into my new article ...and that would surely annoy people (and it would be stupid since we can just fix the title, which is cleaner for MediaWiki). So the right thing to do is fix the title. Comments and suggestions very welcome. Gronky 15:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

GNU/Linux naming controversy → GNU/Linux naming debate – The content of the page is about the debate, not the controversy, and pages that link there do so when discussing the debate, not the controversy (another suggested name is "GNU/Linux naming") — Gronky 12:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support, as per own nomination and above discussions, Gronky 13:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The page covers the disagreement over the naming, its history and context, and the motivations/arguments behind both naming usages: the controversy. "Debate" is less apt, especially because no prominent figure on the side of the "Linux" status quo seems to have been more than marginally involved in a "debate" over the naming in the usual argument-and-rebuttal sense (with good reason: they haven't needed to). (Your POV may vary, but "controversy" is more neutral.) ——Steven G. Johnson 10:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Given the definition above which notes the difference between debate and controversy I agree that Debate may be a better word than controversy, however if there are any other synonyms avaliable which portray the subject more accurately I would support that as well. The word controversy has a negative connotation that should be avoided under the doctrine of NPOV. Kode 01:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Moved from WP:RM

There seems to be no consensus on the article talk page, the only "vote" there is by User:Gronky. I strongly suggest we hold off on this until there is consensus on the articles talk page.  ALKIVAR™ 13:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding. The vote only opened 5 minutes ago. Have I botched the procedure somewhere? Gronky 13:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Not AFAICT but you should include the pages in the Requested moved section (I have done it for you) otherwise when the template is removed there is no archive record of what the WP:RM was. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Not moved. No consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't find: "six" "abdomen" "stomach" nor "muscle" anywhere in the article.

Anyone else find it noteworthy that you can't find any of the words "six" "abdomen" "stomach" nor "muscle" in the article?

Me, I notice that shit, and it make me laf sometimes.

No? Despite the fact that the article is basically about two groups, both of which are at least indicative of (if not predominantly "about") brains over brawn, struggling with each other about who has the rights to claim biggest dick (or at least over who has the rights to name the bloodline, which is pretty much the same arguement) who have chosen as their iconic representation something chubby-but-winning and/vs something chiseled-but-frightful?

It seems like the article ought to acknowledge in some way the rotund vs. angular comparisons that the icons would seem to call for.

There maybe also oughta be, though perhaps nowhere else but here, some reference to the comparing the GNU creature's abs & Tux's belly with profile pics of anyone who's ever contributed a line of code to GNU\Linux. That'd prolly be some funny shit, ozz bless'it.

Perhaps Poorly Put here, but oh well. -:)Ozzyslovechild 02:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a featured article?

Why has this article been selected as a featured article? It is rambling if not repetitive, the writing is unremarkable and it is clearly too topical. This whole issue will have been forgotten in a very few years. Free software matters to many, naming controversies do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.58.20.166 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 May 2006

This article was made a featured article sometime in mid-2004. Since then the standards for featured articles have gone up, and also the article may have been heavily edited so that it is different from then. I don't think that the importance of an issue is relevant to featured article status, only the comprehensiveness, accuracy, and general quality of the article. -- Centrx 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There is always WP:FARC. NicM 22:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC).

"GNU/Linux" spotted in a nonpolitical context ...

Google just released Google Earth for Linux. Their Web pages talk about "Google Earth for Linux", but the installer says this:

$ ./GoogleEarthLinux.bin
Verifying archive integrity... All good.
Uncompressing Google Earth for GNU/Linux 4.0.1563........

Kind of curious! --FOo 05:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The possibility of there being a GNU zealot working for Google is pretty high. ChrisLawson 13:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bare systems

There do exist embedded systems which consist of (1) a Linux kernel (2) a static binary running as process 1. Not even a shell or uClibc! (I know someone who designed some. I'll try to get details to note as an e.g.) - David Gerard 14:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Distributions

I have a small suggestion re the difficulties in making clear why some distinctions about the kernel vs the system are important in this issue. The choice of including GNU programs beyond the build framework was that of specific early distributions and by no means excluded non-GNU sources. Specifically I recall early Slackware distributions borrowing from the old BSD Net sources, and for a long time it was possible to directly compile SunOS sources. So common usage favoured GNU sources but not exclusively, nor as a result of fitting a kernel into an existing OS and was primarily driven by the needs of general distributions, not because doing otherwise was impossible. If this makes sense, perhaps this point can be integrated by someone braver than I. --ewe2 07:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)