Talk:Linux/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions about Linux. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Talk more about international usage

Regarding the to-do list on the top of the page, I've added some information about usage of Linux at an international level. I figured the most appropriate place would be the "Commercial and popular uptake" section of the article. First change to Wikipedia...go easy ;) --0imagination (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pronounciation of "Linux"

Regarding the note: "". I'd think an encyclopedia would focus on presenting the facts over what the most popular view on something is. Besides, based on what data is that claim made?? --0imagination (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the policy of Wikipedia, we don't present the info from the point of view of subjects. man with one red shoe 01:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't know that. Thanks! --0imagination (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And when it comes to names and language in general the only "correct" way is how the majority of people pronounce them. man with one red shoe 01:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

True enough, but there still remains the question on the credibility of whatever research that claim is based on :) --0imagination (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

True enough, but I can't link to English speaking TV -- the listed pronunciation is almost universal. Rent or buy Revolution OS for example and see how people pronounce it. man with one red shoe 01:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to rent or buy Revolution OS - it is available free on Google Video. Hear the pronunciations for yourself! - Ahunt (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The "commonly pronounced" with link to the Linus sample is ok for me, but there is often a difference between the majority and the majority of informed people, so listening to the majority is not the way to go. And don't say English and "universal" in the same sentence ... --LPfi (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"there is often a difference between the majority and the majority of informed people" - Couldn't have said it better myself! --0imagination (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

" majority not a good jury " -- it's not a "good" jury, it's the only jury in this kind of subjects. man with one red shoe 21:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Besides, based on what data is that claim made??" - I think that's a very good question...I for one have never heard Linux pronounced that way, and I've heard it pronounced a lot of very strange ways. Who made that determination? IncidentalPoint (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The determination was made based on my search of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary on the Oxford Reference Online and User:Paul_G's input. (See User_talk:Paul_G#"Linux"_pronunciation) The citation is:

/ˈlɪnəks/

"Linux noun" The Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Katherine Barber. Oxford University Press 2004.

However, I have now noticed that there are also other pronunciations given by various Oxford dictionaries:

/ˈlainəks/, /ˈliːnəks/

"Linux noun" The Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Katherine Barber. Oxford University Press 2004.

/ˈlinəks/

"Linux n." The New Oxford American Dictionary, second edition. Ed. Erin McKean. Oxford University Press, 2005.

/'lɪnʌks/, /'lʌɪnʌks/

"Linux noun" The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005.

"Linux n." The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Twelfth edition . Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2008.

That's six different pronunciations. Notably, none of them are actually Linus' original pronunciation, /ˈlɪnʊks/ or /ˈlɪːnʊks/ (depending on who you talk to, of course). I didn't (and still don't) know IPA so User:Paul_G gave his input on the matter, changed the article, and put that comment in. 220.233.44.172 (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"lyn-ucks" is used a bit more in the UK but its about 60% vs 40% in terms of usage against "Line-ucks" in mainland europe the first one seems to be used much much moreContributions/86.16.153.191 (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Name "GNU/Linux" should be in first lines of the article

Now it is in the third paragraph, and is called "alternative" name, while it is the full name. For example, people usually call the country lying to the north from Mexico and to the south from Canada simply "America", but still it is the USA. 78.36.35.38 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

GNU/Linux is not the full name, it is a name used by a small minority of people. This issue has been discussed at great length over the last number of years, please read all the archives to this page and especially Talk:Linux/Name. The consensus is that GNU/Linux is minority use, is WP:POV and its use is covered in GNU/Linux naming controversy. Its use within this article is on the basis of a long-established consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your references, Ahunt! I read the article "GNU/Linux naming controversy" and I'll check the rest. But I do not agree, that the naming of the system is a subject of consensus between Wikipedians! Wikipedia did not create the system, but Richard Stallman did.

Furthermore! "Minority use", you say? Look around! Check other languages sections! "GNU/Linux" is certainly used as the full name, and "Linux" is used as a common, spoken name.

I'll write more after reading these discussions you told me of. 217.77.54.52 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what other languages do, this is an English encyclopedia, so please don't bring into discussion things that are irrelevant, also before opening the can of worms read the archives -- all the 25 pages of archives, there are full of Linux vs. GNU/Linux debates, if you can't bring anything new don't reopen the discussion. Otherwise don't be surprised if you don't get any response and you are simply reverted -- which I plan to do if you change anything in the article that is the result of consensus. man with one red shoe 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Debian and Ubuntu both use "GNU/Linux", and they're the most popular distributions ever. Next time use an excuse that makes sense, like "Wikipedia naming policy (as retarded as it can be), dictates articles to be given their most popular name" — as many people as there are who call it GNU/Linux, most people who don't even use it call it just Linux, and unfortunately Wikipedia is for those silly people, too. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, we don't write Wikipedia from the point of view of the subjects. man with one red shoe 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not from (how could we, except as much as we ourselves are the subjects), but yes for subjects, according to policy. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Subjects of what? I'm afraid you don't understand the meaning of words... hard to carry on a discussion in this conditions. And what part of "Use the most easily recognized name" you don't understand? man with one red shoe 00:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey man with one red shoe? ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also just plan wrong, while Debian uses "GNU/Linux" Ubuntu never has done nor have 90% of the other existing distros. - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What is GNU/Linux? at ubuntu.com ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the page you cite, first line: "Linux is an operating system: a series of programs that let you interact with your computer and run other programs." Even though it later says: "Because the Linux kernel alone does not form a working operating system, we prefer to use the term “GNU/Linux” to refer to systems that many people casually refer to as “Linux”", the home page says :"Ubuntu is a community developed, Linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers." so you have no consistent agreement there, even within one distro's website. Regardless this not relevant, this is an old issue that that was decided long ago as pointed out in this page's archives. - Ahunt (talk)

Yeah, "Linux-based". :p Regardless, this is not relevant, this is an eternal issue that will never go away until the article's at GNU/Linux, and no consensus (real or not) is forever. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I only see a handful of (same) people and some IP addresses complaining about this... That's pretty much the consensus, learn to live with it. man with one red shoe 02:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Or you could get an eye exam. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And by the way the initial argument of the anon IP is flawed, the article in Wikipedia is not called "USA" or "The United States of America" it's called United States if you make an argument try at least to do the minimum of effort and check the facts that you use to back your argument. Also, arguing using the content of another page of Wikipedia is irrelevant unless that's a policy page (Wikipedia content is not a reliable source or a model for other pages). So, the anon IP made an irrelevant argument, backed by no facts (actually contradicted by facts) -- why do we even discuss this? man with one red shoe 02:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't comment on his argument. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In reference to another recent discussion, I think that the division of the Linux article into "Linux distribution" and "Linux kernel" would clear this up completely...the kernel article would then have nothing to do with GNU/Linux while the distribution article would be the one to describe it outright and make the distinction. Just my two cents.IncidentalPoint (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree with such a move, but I don't have illusions that it would solve anything, the fight will shift to "Linux distribution" vs. "GNU/Linux distribution", right? man with one red shoe 04:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No so much, as you can see for yourself…since both of those articles already exist... :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting to scrap Linux in favor of the other two pages, turning this into a redirect or disambiguation. IncidentalPoint (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That'd be even worse. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"I'm suggesting to scrap Linux in favor of the other two pages, turning this into a redirect or disambiguation" - disagree. - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Man with one red shoe, I did not speak of the article name, but of the article text! And my argument is true. Please see the page United States. The first words there are the full name, "The United States of America". (It's still me, the very anon IP. I've registered) A man without a country (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the archives you'd have seen that this type of argument has been brought before and refuted, people and states have "proper names" there are birth certificates and ID cards that have the names for people, there are constitutions and international organization that name states -- we don't have such thing for Linux, there's no organization that gives a name, there's not one person or organization or even consortium that owns all the Linux code and has the authority to name OSes. Moreover, even if let's say FSF "owns" GNU code it still allows people to use it without imposing a name of the final product so this is a moot point. Basically they don't have the authority to name any product released by other entity even if that's 100% GNU code (which it isn't even the case), the only authority they have is to name their products and they do, they call them "GNU", "GNU/HURD", "Emacs", etc., heck they could launch a "GNU/Linux" if they wanted, but they have zero authority to name what RedHat or Ubuntu or any other company or group releases, or a generic name of a product that uses GNU code. As I said there's no official generic name for aggregation of software that people call Linux, while there is an official name for USA (and even there is an official name the name of the article doesn't even use it, it is mentioned because it's official, but we don't have this in our case so your point about USA name is absolutely irrelevant) man with one red shoe 13:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to learn if they call it "GNU/Linux" in state acts.

P.S. Hmmm. I write this lines using the OS called Debian GNU/Linux. So moving this name to the third paragraph seems to be simply discriminating. But I've checked your position on the Linux/Name talk page, so I know that it doesn't matter for you. Also, I see that there is even no use to talk with you as you are initially biased (though, may be I am biased too), and also that such discussion is a waste of time cause nothing useful is produced. Now I just wonder where do they make the consensus you told of, please point it to me. A man without a country (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written based on hearsay. man with one red shoe 12:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely irrelevant ;) A man without a country (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read all the archives I think what you will find is that the article was originally given the most commonly used name for the operating system, which is "Linux". It has been proposed many times that it be changed to "GNU/Linux" and many complex debates are recorded there. To change the name of the article requires a consensus, not to leave it the way it is. That consensus to change the name of the article was never achieved and that is what the archives show. The use of "GNU/Linux" is well covered in GNU/Linux naming controversy. As it says in this article "The Free Software Foundation views Linux distributions which use GNU software as GNU variants and they ask that such operating systems be referred to as GNU/Linux or a Linux-based GNU system. The media and common usage, however, refers to this family of operating systems simply as Linux, as do many large Linux distributions (e.g. Ubuntu and SuSE Linux). Some distributions use GNU/Linux (particularly notable is Debian GNU/Linux), but the term's use outside of the enthusiast community is limited. The naming issue remains a source of confusion to many newcomers, and the naming remains controversial. Linus Torvalds is against the GNU/Linux naming, stating that Linux is not a GNU project." This text was decided by consensus and sums up the prevailing view point. - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ahunt! I'm sorry if I bothered you so you had to answer me. But I repeat, that I never suggested to change the name of the article. I am familiar with Wikipedia naming policy and respect it. I said of the text only. A man without a country (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you understand the naming policy then you should understand other Wikipedia policies such as: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, till now you only provided your opinion about the "full name" and you provided "I've heard that" type of arguments, none of those are relevant here. man with one red shoe 08:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for advice, I'll read of this policies. A man without a country (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is a stupid term (yes, it has its uses in the Wiki community, but that is to make decisions). You can create, buy and do all kinds of things with a "consensus". You might mean to say that "Linux" is used more popularly, but we aren't here to present consensus; we're here to present facts. It's an encyclopedia - not a place to distort facts. People should learn things when they come here, preferably correct things. The best idea is to start out by saying "Linux is the name of an OS kernel, and many people simply refer to the whole operating system as "Linux" if it is using the Linux kernel. Most OSes are actually a combination of many components and should be referred to as GNU/Linux." Something like that, at least start out by informing visitors that Linux is actually a kernel, NOT an OS, and then people can do what they want. The only reason to ignore this is to deliberately spread lies because you have a grudge against the FSF or GNU for trying to claim some of the credit. (Sorry, I can't seem to get my login to work, so I can't really sign this comment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.183.104 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2009 June 29

User:65.87.183.104 - I think your rant is adequetely responded to at Wikipedia:The Truth - Ahunt (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you say about these? kernel differencies between microkernel and monolithic operating system, logic about GNU/Linux terminology based to science and then latery for little more exploration different arcitechtures of operating systems. You can all fight how much you want about GNU/Linux naming about how popular it is, on one or different countries. It does not over rule the science what rules that linux kernel is the operating system and the GNU has nothing to do with the operating system. GNU project own operating system called Hurd, is own project and Hurd uses Mach microkernel itself. If GNU would like to be get promoted as OS, it should get Hurd working first! The Linux article itself should be cleared totally from GNU as OS parts. Only thing could be left is the totall GNU politics by RMS that GNU is needed for Linux name. What is just silly political, not technology. The name must be kept as Linux only! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.165.184.109 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Version number

In Talk:Linux_kernel#Version_number it was suggested that this article should not have a version number mentioned. I agree. We cannot assign a version number because the article is about GNU/Linux distributions in general.

However it seems it is not easy to remove the version number since it is coded into Template:Infobox_OS (which detects the presence of Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Linux and adds the version number automatically). So to remove the version number, we could use a different template here (or just inline the table) or getting Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Linux deleted would work too. Since I don't know much about templates I'll let somebody else decide what to do. -- Borb (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A correction here -- this article isn't about "GNU/Linux" anything. It's about the term "Linux" and all that it refers to (including, not not limited to, Linux when used in conjunction with GNU software. μClinux-dist, e.g., is a Linux without GNU). But yes, the version number doesn't really need to be shown in this article. Converting to {{Infobox OS 2}} and {{prod}}ding the software release templates for deletion would be an effective way of dealing getting rid of it. Warren -talk- 06:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that is contrary to the end of the third paragraph which suggests GNU/Linux as an alternative name for what this article is about. You bring up one of the major problems with this article which was discussed (with no conclusion) in the section #What is this article about?. Maybe you can contribute to that discussion regarding the topic of the article. -- Borb (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not contrary. Read it carefully: The Linux kernel + GNU tools may be called GNU/Linux as an alternative to simply "Linux". It is never appropriate to call just the kernel component "GNU/Linux". That's not its name -- you won't see it on anywhere on kernel.org, which is the authoritative source for the naming and version numbering of the Linux kernel.

I don't know why I'm bothering trying to explain this to someone who felt it vital to assert on their user page that they disagree on principle with the term "Linux". It's a narrow and misguided view that doesn't take into account the full spectrum of what the term "Linux" covers; it'd be like arguing that Canada has ten provinces and nothing more. Warren -talk- 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was appropriate to call Linux GNU/Linux. This article is not just about Linux, that article is at Linux kernel. We use the term GNU/Linux when we talk about both Linux and GNU used in combination to form a complete Unix-like operating system (as defined in the Single Unix Specification). I do not say that my router runs GNU/Linux because that would be incorrect, it runs Linux and Busybox. I also do not call Android GNU/Linux and I certainly do not say that kernel.org distributes GNU/Linux.

It appears that you are confused about what this article is supposed to be about, which is why I recommended reading the discussion above: #What is this article about? The term Linux seems to be used mostly to describe a GNU/Linux distribution, not many people say Linux to refer to the kernel itself, even the kernel folk simply refer to it as "The Kernel" and seem to reserve the term "Linux" to mean a fully working distribution such as Debian. -- Borb (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"We use the term GNU/Linux when we talk about both Linux and GNU" -- you use that term, the most of the people don't. Besides people just talk about the OS that uses Linux kernel they simply don't care about GNU, BSD, X11, Apache and other software that's present in the final OS. man with one red shoe 17:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Just want to say that I think Man with one red shoe describes the consensus correctly. Borb states a minority view, and their view is alreday given due weight in the article. I applaud Man with one red shoe's patience in stating this once again. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant and verging on trolling. It seems you people just cannot stand even seeing the term GNU/Linux (which I merely consider to be a fully-qualified name for the Unix-like system I use, and no X11 and Apache are not required for Unix). This is a talk page, and arguing about my use of language here is unnecessary and simply flame-bait. If you don't have anything to add about the use of a version number in this article then don't post in this discussion. If you are really offended by my language then you can bring it up with me personally. -- Borb (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What you consider to be the "fully-qualified" name is pretty much irrelevant that's the only point I'm making. man with one red shoe 19:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The topic of this seccion, Version number, is not about the name GNU or Linux or what it refers. The description in the first line is very clear and not in discussion now.

I think that this article Linux shouldn't refer to any version number in the infobox. The Linux kernel version number should be in that article and not in this. --KDesk (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've untangled the mess with all these templates:

If there is consensus not to include the version numbers in the Linux article the only thing that needs to be done now is change frequently_updated = yes in the Linux article to frequently_updated = . The {{Latest stable software release/Linux}} and {{Latest preview software release/Linux}} templates actually were and are still used by the Linux kernel article as well because the name = parameter was set to "Linux". I temporarily changed it to "Linux kernel" while migrating the version information but changed it back to "Linux" once done. There is no need to delete anything now and clicking on the version links from Linux kernel to update the version information will preload the correct version templates.
--Tothwolf (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A-class review

I am thinking of promoting Linux to an A-class article. Please discuss here. Pmlinediter ^Talk 12:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that the Criticism of Linux article be merged into this, and its sub-articles, where the content fits best. The article on its own is POV, not a notable subject to stand on its own, and contains subject matter which is biased. More details can be found on the talk page of the article, and in the 3 prior AFD's for that article (1 was delete, 2 for keep/merge).-Localzuk^(talk) 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The sizes are 52 Kbytes (Linux) and 10 Kbytes (Criticism of...). I don't like the size of the resulting article. While the current article is not it, I think a good article could be written about the criticisms of Linux (not its shortcomings, but who's attacked it, when, and why). An article that starts off with lots of 2007 quotes can't possibly document *current* Linux shortcomings, but the fact that it was attacked in 2007 for being immature may be noteworthy. --Alvestrand (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not proposing it all be shoehorned in this article - but listing every sub-article of this one would be pointless. As I said, the content would go into this and the sub-articles. So it wouldn't be adding 10kb to this article at all.

Also, the fact that the article lists criticisms that are now between 2 and 5 years out of date indicates that the subject as a separate entity is not notable. What would be good would be discussing the criticisms of, say, usability of Desktop linux in the Desktop Linux article or even in the History of Linux article (it being historical information and all), etc...-Localzuk^(talk) 11:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"The article on its own is POV" -- merging POV into this article would not make it NPOV, it would damage this article too. man with one red shoe 14:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as one of the reasons it is POV is the fact that the article is there to focus on the negative topics (what is called a POVFORK), yes, merging it would solve that.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I happen to believe that that article should not exist, and in general "Criticism of..." sections or article should not exist when it comes to software or hardware -- they are not operas, theater, books, or movies to have a section about critical reception, if there are problems with the software/hardware that should be treated in the article in the right section, not in a POVish and POV magnet separate section titled "Criticism of..." man with one red shoe 17:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that the existing Criticism of Linux is on topic and well referenced, although it could use expanding and improving, of course. I don't see any problem with it including "historical criticisms" as many articles contain these; there is no reason for it to only contain current criticisms as those would lack historical context. Just about the whole of Criticism of Windows XP article is now historical in nature as that operating system is no longer mainstream-supported. Should the article be deleted? I do not see the NPOV problem with Criticism of Linux, User:Localzuk has stated that he thinks that it has an NPOV problem but has not explained specifically where he thinks the problem lies so it can be corrected. Furthermore I think that merging the article into predominantly Linux and Desktop Linux would make those articles too long and would result in a call to split them in the near future. I would rather work on improving Criticism of Linux, rather than disburse it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have explained in detail, multiple times - look at my arguments from 2 years ago - it has been that long since I commented last, and nothing has changed to improve it. Please read my comments from back then, and those on the AFDs.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - The content in Criticism of Linux would be more natural in Linux. Mike92591 (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - The topic stands on its own. It's certainly too big to stuff into this article, and please, an article that documents criticism isn't POV unless it endorses or unduly emphasizes that criticism. Estemi (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose because of size and different subject from main article. Since we're !voting, I'd better be clear. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ Support(changed vote, misunderstood the proposal, comments stand though) - Too much content that would put an undue weight on issues lateral to the main subject, also "Criticism" sections are POV-magnets that usually attract poor contributions (in my opinion they should be banned except for art articles), and in an article as visible as Linux and trolled to no end that section would be a primary target, better keep that in a separate page (although I fail to see the encyclopedic value of that article either). Programs, operating systems are not operas or books or shows to require a "critical reception" section. And yes, as Estemi explained, the article itself is not a POV fork (while it might contain some undue POV), it's a content fork. It would have been a POV fork if for example it would have claimed that Linux is something else, that's the meaning of "POV fork" man with one red shoe 05:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay it has been five days since this was proposed and, since merger proposals usually have the effect of stopping work on an article while they are outstanding, I thought I would provide a summary here of where we are here and way forward before the issue is closed.

We have heard from six editors so far (not counting one other editor who tried to text dump the article into this one without reading the debate) and the results are:

Two in favour of a merger of some kind
Four opposed to a merger of some kind

I propose we give it until Sunday to give any "weekend-only" editors the chance to wade in and then wrap it up so that either the merger can occur or getting on with improving the article can proceed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to rush things. 5 days is not a long time, considering this issue has hung around now for more than 2 years. And also, there is no reason to stop editing anything. A merger proposal does not stop editing.

Also, this is not a vote. We do these things by the strength of the arguments, not by the numbers. So far, the arguments being given are weak for some people...-Localzuk^(talk) 18:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a "vote", but it is not correct to say that these sorts of matters are decided by "strength of the arguments", they are decided by consensus, which is different. It is not the best argument that prevails, but as the article says "Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved." In a case like this to make a change pretty much everyone involved has to be able to "live with" the result. The article on consensus also warns that the same issue should not be brought up again and again trying to find the right group of people to agree to the change. I am not opposed to waiting a few more days, but I don't see the point of keeping this open well beyond when the commnets have ceased to be added. As it stands right now there is no consensus to merge, but let's see what others have to say.- Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

From the consensus policy In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. Consensus is based on strength of arguments. Not just 'me too' votes, or people who have ignored the reasoning given, and regurgitated arguments that have already been shown to be null.

What I have asked for, several times, is actual arguments that counter mine. So far, I have not received any convincing ones, and none that haven't been disproven before.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant if you are convinced, what's important is if the rest of the people are, and they don't seem to be. man with one red shoe 19:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, however, my point is that actual reasoning must be given for people to 'vote' and for their 'vote' to mean anything, should a third party come and close this.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For what is worth I changed my vote because I didn't understand your initial proposal, thanks for the explanations, I'm still skeptic about implementation and about you being able to convince people that enough material has been moved in this article to allow the deletion of that page. man with one red shoe 20:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry, but have those people above not read what I have suggested? I am not asking for a criticism section! My point is that such sections (and indeed 'articles') are bad. I'd be asking for the information to be chopped up and distributed where it applies. So, a criticism about usability of desktop linux would go in the Desktop Linux article... Please, before making statements about criticism sections being bad, and therefore a merger would be bad, please read what has been proposed!-Localzuk^(talk) 18:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you didn't make it clear, how do you plan to merge that content organically? I think you noticed the editor who just dumped all the text in that page in a "Criticism" section, if you have other plans I might support that, but info needs to be integrated organically, not simply dumped in this page. Maybe you should start by adding the relevant info so we'll see what you want to do, once you integrate all the important info then you can ask for that page to be deleted. man with one red shoe 19:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. And that's why this is a merger discussion... For example, the first section of the article, discussing viability as a desktop OS, actually covers information already in the Linux adoption article. The same goes for the Customer Support section - this even has a section dedicated to it in the linked article. Same goes for the third section. A few bits of each section could probably be moved over, including possibly some of the sources, but that's about it.

The entire Microsoft section is actually difficult to justify at all, as it is a campaign by a company to who Linux is a competitor. This brings the validity of their claims into disripute.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, but I still want to see practical implementation, you can't just say "that material is covered" nobody will allow you to delete that page. And I agree that Microsoft claims are POV and their treatment is out of proportion (undue weight, at most there should be a sentence about competitor claims) man with one red shoe 20:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will do some work on it this weekend, and then we can all see what it looks like.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you mock it up in your sandbox space to let us see what you have in mind in detail, without prejudicing the outcome of this debate. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There has been no further discussion or advancement on this issue in two weeks now. Clearly from the above discussion there is no consensus to merge. Tags removed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)