Talk:Linux/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

India

India has gone so far as to make it mandatory for all state high schools to run Linux on their computers.[29]

Nowhere in the source does it say that India has done anything like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pisharov (talk • contribs) 19:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's just the state of Kerala in India. I updated the article to reflect that. The original source talks about it in the 2nd paragraph. I also added a more recent source http://www.indianexpress.com/news/kerala-shuts-windows-schools-to-use-only-linux/280323/0 which talks a little more about it.--173.16.83.10 (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Diagram of Linux OS main compoments

Main components of Linux operating system

• What are pro an cons about the diagram?
• How to improve it?

Conan (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Cons: it's WP:OR, it's a confusing salad of acronyms and techy names, it's not accurate and it's probably WP:POV as many original researches tends do be. man with one red shoe 09:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think User:man with one red shoe pretty much sums up the previous objections that have resulted in this image being removed several times. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This version is also very much outdated and incomplete, compared to the original source. If Conan can work up an updated version that gives better overall coverage I really don't see why the article can't include some sort of relation map. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Also it's an image of a bunch of plain text. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Which means an updated version would make an excellent ImageMap with links to other articles. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, which means an updated version should not use images except for logos, if they are to remain. ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think an image like that would be quite useful. SF007 (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Linux kernel is the monolithic operating system. Not the complete software system. software from KDE, X11 or GNU project are not part of the OS. The Linux is monolithic what means it is complete operating system alone. It is not "just the kernel". Check out microkernel vs monolithic OS and then read preview (top left, book image) of first few pages from Modern Operating Systems and then read shorter version operating system arcitechtures and then last, but not worst the basic logic about GNU and if still not understanding that Linux is the operating system and GNU or any other projects software does not belong to the OS. This diagram is pretty good and clear. The GNU/Linux or Linux + X11 + KDE and others misinformation should be cleared long time ago but it still continues because people does not understand the OS structures and history. In short version, that diagram is just wrong. 62.165.184.109 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tux gone??

Just noticed we no longer have an image of Tux. Is there a reason for that? I know this is not really about the Linux Kernel, but... Tux is still a symbol when we talk about Linux. Any opinions? SF007 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably just vandalized. I've reverted two cases of vandalism today already. Yworo (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe not. I spotchecked back to mid-June and don't see a TuX.... I presume he was in the infobox? There's one on Linux kernel, but I seem to remember a larger one here? Yworo (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Even weirder, now he's back and nobody did anything.. unless updates are lagging... Yworo (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahahah, tux maybe just went to the bathroom really quick and came back... SF007 (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That is funny! More than likely it was because the Wikipedia servers were overloaded, as usual, and the picture just didn't load! - Ahunt (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

On a side note: screenshots of Ubuntu and Debian were also missing... but are now back... SF007 (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Minix or solaris?

Err; didn't Linus want a home replacement for the solaris os? That is what I seem to recall. Pointers to this can be found in the minix article. First, minix is a piece of bsd-licensed free software (so there's no point in coding a noncommercial counterpart; as it was one itself). Second; MINIX was also running as a user process under SunOS and Solaris. He did post an announcement to the minix usenet group. However; this was a place where OS hackers would hang out (Tanenbaum's lab work included writing a network filesystem; not a trivial task) -Nidomedia (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

At the time that Linux was written, Minix was not BSD-licensed. According to Minix#Licensing, it became BSD-licensed in April 2000. (I considered installing Minix myself back in the 90s, before Linux came out, but didn't because the hassle of ordering the book so that I could run it legally was too much....) --Alvestrand (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"this is about software, photos of people only add clutter"

I agree with the above statement made by 85.244.233.128; the photos themselves (of Stallman, Tanenbaum, Torvalds) have insufficient importance to the subject. Interested folk can of course click on these peoples names to see the pics. Also, its better to draw the line at no pictures, otherwise one could argue that pictures of a host of other people (e.g. Jim Gettys and Bob Scheifler, founders of the X Window System; Mark Shuttleworth, founder of the most popular distro; etc.) should be included. Note that there are no photos of people on the MS DOS, Unix, Windows, OS/2, Solaris or OS X pages. 87.115.91.201 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Software is created by people, so some people belong here (Torvalds first of all). Which people to choose is a judgment call (and subject to availability of appropriately licensed pictures). --Alvestrand (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Alvestrand. Yworo (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Alvestrand that the photos should stay. The article is not cramped for photos, even at wide screen resolutions and 300px preferences set. The photos add a human face to an otherwise technical subject. - Ahunt (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read the original paragraph and comment taking into account all the points raised, in particular, the last sentence. Please don't confuse the relevance of references to people with that of pictures of people, and please don't introduce spurious points re screen resolution. 87.115.91.201 (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you are new here on Wikipedia I should explain that screen resolutions and user preferences are not spurious points when the complainant User:85.244.233.128 asserts that his or her reason for removing the photos is that they "only add clutter".

This is germane because wider screens display longer Wikipedia articles as shorter, because the text is spread out more laterally and less so vertically. This factor will tend to bunch photos together and "create more clutter" than will narrower screen resolutions. Hence wider resolutions are worse for clutter than narrower screens and thus make or break the "clutter" argument. Likewise user preferences can set thumbnails to as much as 300px, from the standard, non-specified 180px. Larger thumbnails also will increase the likelihood of image clutter. Thus the combination of 300px image preferences and a wide screen resolution makes up a "worst case" to test to see if the article is indeed cluttered by images, as the complainant claims it is. I tested the page at 1400px screen width and 300px thumbnail preferences and the proposed images do not impinge or otherwise clutter the article. Thus the claim that "photos of people only add clutter" does not hold up under testing.

Since you ask, I will directly address your point that the photos have "insufficient importance to the subject". I will only point out that I do not agree that a photo of, for instance, Linus Torvalds has "insufficient importance to" the subject of Linux.

As far as those other articles not having photos of people, I would say that they are less complete than this one. Especially on Wikipedia, the "other stuff exists" argument does not win out.

On both points you haven't presented a convincing case. - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that user 87.x.x.x, if he does not want to see the images, could turn off images in his browser or use a text-only browser. If he would create an account, he could make the default size of images smaller so as to "clutter" the text less. Finally, since no Wikipedia policy is violated, the matter is decided by consensus and clearly the consensus is against 87.x.x.x. Yworo (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The clutter being referred to here (I assume by the original complainant, and by me at least) is primarily semantic clutter; it does not refer to the size or position of pictures, but to the fact that their relevance is insufficient to warrant inclusion. Thus by including them, the reader comes across them and is confused perhaps thinking "Why have these pictures been included? Are they in fact more relevant than they appear to be in the context of the article?"

Are you referring here to the kernel or linux distros? And where would you draw the line? As Jim Gettys said, "There are lots of people on this bus..."

But this is not an "other stuff exists" argument; it's an "other similar articles manage to succintly describe their subject matter without similar pictures, so why can't this one?" argument. AFAICT, there is no one proposing on the talk pages to add photos to those similar articles.

I would hope not to have to present something that might hold up in court! I'd hope others might "pick up the ball and run with it", at least toss the idea around a bit.

The issues here are the conciseness and balance of the content, and I would argue that consensus on how to achieve this can be gleaned by looking at the similar articles to which I referred earlier. Here's another good example: X Window System, clicking through on the contributors' names gives you as much (or as little) info on the contributor as is available and thus does not in the article run the risk of bias (intentional or otherwise) towards the importance of any particular contributor. 87.115.91.201 (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No the consensus process doesn't work that way. There doesn't even need to be discussion on this talk page for there to be a clear consensus (see this explanation). Other articles have nothing to do with consensus on this article. If you think there should be some overall policy or guideline involved, go to the pages where these sorts of policies are discussed, such as Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. Cheers. Yworo (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from talking about the consensus until the discussion has taken place. Do you have anything useful to contribute that relates to the discussion points i.e. conciseness, relevance, potential perceived bias?

Please refrain from pretending that the discussion has not already taken place. Yworo (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. 87.115.91.201 (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You may interpret that as pointing out that nobody agrees with you. Take two cluesticks and call me in the morning. Yworo (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The key thing here is both WP:BVD and the associated WP:CONSENSUS. Essentially you made a bold change (removing the pictures), which is fine. Then you were reverted, indicating at least one editor disagreed and now we are discussing, as per the "bold-revert-discuss cycle". The onus is on the editor wanting to make the change to convince the other editors who are interested enough to participate, that the change is worthwhile to the point of creating a consensus here on the talk page for this one article. It isn't up to other editors to refute or defeat your ideas, it is up to you to present convincing reasons for the change - convincing to others, not just to yourself. Your arguments don't need to be "within reasonable doubt", just convincing to others, that is all. What you need to do is come up with good enough reasons so that other editors here will say "Oh yeah, I see your point, okay let's do that".

So far your main points seem to be:

• Other similar articles don't have photos of the people involved
• That the photos cause "semantic clutter" - which you define as "relevance is insufficient to warrant inclusion"

As I mentioned above so far you haven't convinced anyone. If you cannot convince most other editors interested here than you have failed to create a consensus and the photos remain in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yworo, as it would appear you've not read the bullet points at the top of the page, I'll present them here for you now:

• Be polite
• Assume good faith
• Avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming

Ahunt, it was not I who made the bold change; I observed it, considered it worthy of discussion, and brought it to talk. Unfortunately, no one seems willing to take part in discussion -- the initial responses largely missed the point made by the original complainant (arguably, 'clutter' was not the best word to use). This, I hope I addressed in my replies and follow on questions but they've not been answered, quite possibly because they've subsequently been moved out of context. 87.115.91.201 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

At some point, persistence in the face of disinterest starts to appear obsessive. You were welcomed, you were engaged in discussion: now you've become annoying and are verging on violating WP:POINT. I politely pointed you in the direction of Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. Why don't you take the hint? Yworo (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, dealing with various IP address editors can get a bit confusing, I thought you were the IP editor that had removed the images. Many people have dynamic IP addresses and they change all the time. Perhaps you would like to create an account? Of course this does bring up another point, if the other IP address editor who made the initial edit to remove the photos felt he/she had a worthwhile point, then why have they not participated in this discussion? - Ahunt (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

symbian os

Anon- july, 30 2009- linux can not be the main competitor for the proprietary operating system symbian os because symbian os is open source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.73.217 (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not according to Symbian OS#Becoming open source. It's starting out in that direction. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

...Ask the N900 designers team ;-) Also, again, this is not the place for such discussion 189.87.149.23 (talk)NeoStrider

GNU/Linux --> Linux ??? Fix redirect and stop conflating the two ideas.

Let's use correct terminology. Linux is the kernel and only the kernel. See http://www.linux.org/ . GNOME, KDE, the GNU C compiler, all the GNU utilities, GIMP, X Windows: none of that is Linux. It's all stuff that runs on top of the Linux kernel, or operating system. No, it's not all GNU, but it is definitely not Linux. This article should talk about the Linux kernel and nothing but the Linux kernel. Richard Stallman had nothing to do with the Linux kernel, except for developing the GPL under which it is released. Why is his picture even in this article? GNU/Linux should be a separate article that talks about systems commonly used where various GNU utilities are running on top of the Linux kernel. There is even Busybox that runs on Linux and replaces all the GNU utilities. I would call such a system Busybox/Linux instead of GNU/Linux. Deepmath (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is possibly one of the most rehashed arguments on Wikipedia. Two of the four bullet points in the "Useful info from archives" box at the top of this page address your points. An entire talk sub-page, Talk:Linux/Name, is dedicated to this argument. Page moves have been suggested and discussed many, many times. Pretty much every one of the 25 archives of this talk page have one or, often, more sections dedicated to this debate. Heck, forget the the talk pages: an entire article exists purely to discuss it (GNU/Linux naming controversy). Various consensuses and sub-consensuses have, through long and arduous debate, been hashed out. Read the past and present discussions, and contribute in the appropriate place. -- simxp (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should add that the clear consensus is for the current article name to cover the current article subject matter and that the article name conforms to Wikipedia:Naming conventions in that it uses "the most easily recognized name" for the computer operating systems that use the Linux kernel. - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Simxp, no need to be condescending, really. It says at the very top of Talk:Linux/Name this is the correct place to discuss the issue. Concensus is a nasty thing; it's fluid. I'm in complete agreement with Deepmath. The name of this article is not a problem as long as the content is changed, there's no "Linux operating system" quite regardless how many times main stream media might use such a term. Wikipedia's purpose should be to enlighten people about facts and not to fortify their misconceptions. I find it highly ironic that a wikipedia article on GNU/Linux should belittle the GNU project since wikipedia itself is a product of the GNU project... --88.148.205.72 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia fulfills said purpose in enlightening people of the fact that this software is usually referred to as "Linux". It is not fact that it is properly named "GNU/Linux". No one is a position to give this combination of software a proper name. It is not a misconception that this software is mostly called Linux--it is. A misconception might have caused people to call it just Linux but it is in fact what it's called.- Josh (talk | contribs) 18:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. Some Linux distributions refer to themselves GNU/Linux and this is reflected in the articles on those distributions. But to the general population it's just plain Linux., and according to Wikipedia standards, Linux is the correct name for this article. I'd also like to note that there is no GNU operating system either, but the GNU article also states that GNU is an operating system. Should we correct that "error" too, Mr. IP user? Oh, and your information about Wikipedia being a GNU project is also erroneous. GNUpedia and Nupedia were competing projects and Wikipedia derived from the latter, not the former. Yworo (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right that there are two issues that should be treated separately. One issue is the title of this article. The other is how it is referred to in other articles. I'm less confident in the consensus you describe in regards to the second issue --- although I agree that it is the right outcome; Thumperward might disagree. People arguing about the latter issue in the most recent iteration of this argument seemed to get so tired that they never real revisited with the former. —mako๛ 01:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Thumperward closed the Talk:Linux/Name after the subpage had been quiet for a month. Is there any reason to keep it closed? To me it seems useful to have a subpage for this discussion; it flares up every so often. Consensus to remove the "closed" tag? --Alvestrand (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should have a NeverEndingStory page about this subject. man with one red shoe 18:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Multics family

Moved to Talk:Mac OS X

 – Subsection is Talk:Mac OS X#Multics Family --Tothwolf (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we re-classify this article under 'OS family: Multics' in the info box, for the reason that Unix is based on Multics. MFNickster (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't agree. Unix is not part of any so called "Multics family". man with one red shoe 03:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree also. In any case, its direct "parent" is Unix. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

But this source states that "Unix is based on Multics" : [1] MFNickster (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I can bring many sources that show that Unix was inspired by Multics, and it actually diverged significantly from it (even the name is a pun on Multics to show it's not made like it). "Based on" can have multiple meanings in computing world, starting from "inspired from" and ending with "has the same initial codebase as". If you can find me any credible source that talks about "Multics family of OSes" and includes Unix, then we can debate this further, till then let's drop it... man with one red shoe 04:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's just wrong, I can also find other sources that say Unix is not "based" on Multics. The initial version Unix was written by the Multics developers [2]. Some of the Multics concepts were used in Unix (but not the code), but then Multics also borrowed other concepts in earlier operating systems. So using this logic, we then need to say that Multics is in the OS/360 family. Oh, and OS/360 borrowed concepts from even earlier operating systems, so every single operating system in the world is based on IBM 7090/94 IBSYS!

Linux is not based on Unix in the code, but at least the programming interface follows Unix's standard (namely POSIX). The current page is correct that Linux's "OS family" is Unix-like. Raysonho (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen the term "Multics-like" in any sort of common usage; "Unix-like" however... [3] -- Limulus (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion began in Talk:Mac OS X. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Torvalds reference about GNU/Linux naming controversy

From edit comments:

• IP: Removed irrelevant statement (Torvalds was referring to Linux (kernel), not an OS that uses Linux, whereas the paragraph discusses OS-s) (ip)
• Ahunt: Restored statement cited ref - this is relevant to this article

I think both are right here. In the cited ref Torvalds is discussing the GPLv3 and states that the Linux kernel is not an FSF – not even a Free Software – project. It is relevant as Linux also as an operating system is strongly connected to him and the kernel. But the statement is not explicitely about the naming controversy and using it as a reference is approaching own research. An explicit statement should not be hard to find.

--LPfi (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but Ahunt is wrong here. The FSF request the use of GNU/Linux *only* when referring to the operating system formed by the combination of GNU software and Linux (kernel), which is reasonable. The FSF has *never* wanted Linux (kernel) to be labeled as GNU/Linux, which would be completely unreasonable. If you think otherwise then the burden is on you to support your argument with references. In that lkml post Torvalds seems to be confused, because he is making the argument that Linux (kernel) should not be called GNU/Linux, which, again, *has never been* the FSF's position. On the other hand, the paragraph in the article discusses the issue of calling the Linux-and-GNU-based operating system "GNU/Linux" by some and just "Linux" by others. The ref to lkml is not only irrelevant, but also misrepresented and confusing. Therefore it must be removed for the sake of keeping up standards on WP.

81.86.232.182 (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the statement to make it more general and cited a ref that does support this. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tux

Why not use the newer glossy Tux, rather than the old one? It's more widely used, newer, cleaner etc. This would be like using the old multi-coloured apple on the mac page.--Baina90 (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a new Tux? Link please. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be really great to have a reference and a note of license compatibility with WP (I believe the original logo is license-compatible with WP). Since it's "newer" I tend to doubt it's "more widely used". Can you point to an example? The only "newer" mascots I can think of are these: Torvalds: It's Time to Dump the Penguin (2005) and The kernel gets a new mascot (2009), neither of which was a permanent change. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the Tux used on this page [4] and this is the newer Tux [5]. Note the name of the file is "NewTux". Note that this is also the icon preferred by The Linux Foundation [6]], you will see the newer version used throughout the site. Since the foundation places a heavy emphasis on standardisation, if they are using this version it is because, for them, it is the standard Tux. The Microsoft Windows page uses the new Windows 7 logo, not the square Windows 98 logo.--Baina90 (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Also the version used on portal:linux, thus the standard version on Wikipedia also.--Baina90 (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just went though the Linux foundation website and didn't see any versions of Tux there, except in a couple of ads. They don't seem to use it. Maybe you can point out where they use it? - Ahunt (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For example: http://kernel.org/powered.html and of course inside the kernel itself but we can't link to that can we? man with one red shoe 18:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that's still the "normal" tux. I find zero evidence the translucent version is anything more than a variant. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant, that's the one we should we it. man with one red shoe 19:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

They use it twice on the main page, plus on the ads. The main thing is that the foundation is dedicated to standardisation, if they use this version its because they consider it to be standard. No-one has anything to say on the usage in the Wikipedia Linux Portal?--Baina90 (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That is quite a stretch. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, look at the Tux page and it says under the picture "as originally drawn by...". The original is not mean that it is the currently accepted icon.--Baina90 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm only seeing it used in some small little icon images. Could you provide an example of the Foundation using it prominently? Further, I question the relevance of the Foundation's position at all; Linux is a community-run project and the normal Tux is far more widely used. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The cleaned up SVG is the most appropriate. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)