Talk:Linux/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Penguin as a mascot

Where did it come from? Why a penguin? Perhaps the article could also address this, as it does not mention it at the moment. Cheers. Pikolas (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

...remarkable. I'd always thought this article contained a small section on Tux. This is indeed an omission, and a small section on the mascot should be included. (The short answer is that Larry Ewing drew him after being inspired by a comment on LKML, and Linus likes penguins.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Linus-pronounces-linux.ogg

File:Linus-pronounces-linux.ogg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been proposed to be deleted as unused. I think it can be used here though, since the pronounciation of "linux" has been an issue to some people. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

POSIX time of 2^64 -1 equals 15:30:08 Sunday, 04 December 292,277,026,596 UTC?

Over at Talk:Unix time#Year 292.2C277.2C026.2C596 is illegal as fact for encyclopedia another editor has questioned the claim that at 15:30:08 UTC on Sunday, 04 December 292,277,026,596, 64-bit versions of the Unix time stamp will overflow the largest value that can be held in a signed 64-bit number. In particular, he is questioning the conversion from Signed 64-bit time_t = 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 (2⁶⁴-1) to the above date/time. Is there a Linux utility that will convert a POSIX time of 2⁶⁴-1 to the above date? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: minor syntax change

{{edit semi-protected}} I think that "This allows the user to adapt the operating system to his/her specific needs." should be changed to "This allows users to adapt the operating system to their specific needs." Xpapad 09:26, 07 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Very good suggestion, BTW. I hope to see you make many more contributions to Wikipedia in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The GPL is not an "open source" license, as implied in the introduction.

In the opening sentence of paragraph 3, the wording "free and open source software" is used, and it is then later implied that the GNU GPL is a "free and open source" by using it as an example.

However, the GNU GPL is most certianly not an "open source" licence; and this fact has been made quite clear by the GPL's principal author, Mr. Richard Stallman in one of his articles http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

I propose that the sentence be changed to read "The development of Linux is one of the most prominent examples of free software collaboration: the underlying source code may be used, modified, and distributed—commercially or non-commercially—by anyone under licenses such as the GNU General Public License."

One might argue that because Linus Torvalds doesn't entirely agree with the FSF that it at least that portion might imply that the Kernel falls under the "open source" development category; while that might be somewhat justified, the GPL should not be in any way misrepresented as an "open source" license, because it, by definition, isn't.

This also makes the article less consistent. The other simultaneous mention of the GPL and "open source" licences occurs in the first paragraph of the development section, where the GPL is more appropriately introduced as a "free software" licence, specifically, "The most common free software license, the GNU GPL,..."

Additionally, the Kernel *is* GPL'ed, and I particularly don't like that "such as" wording; it implies that the Kernel may or may not be GPL'ed software. I also suggest that the sentence more accurately reflect free-software-specific freedoms, for the same reason.

I suggest, as a result, modifying my last proposal to then read "The development of Linux is one of the most prominent examples of free software development: the ability to use the Linux freely for any purpose, the free distribution of the unofuscated source code to allow users to study and modify the Linux, and the ability to freely redistributed both original and modified copies of Linux provided those copies don't attempt to remove these rights from the recipient--the GNU GPL provides the legal means to ensure all Linux users are allowed to enjoy these freedoms."

This also takes the unnessessary emphasis off that "commercially or non-commercially" wording, which is a not a focus of "open source" or free software licences, and made redundant by the "use Linux freely for any purpose" wording anyway.

Zack Buhman 16:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhmanator (talk • contribs)

Buhmanator, I think you should re-read your post. Also, from the very same page you linked:

Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.

Medende (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Medende has a valid point, while Stallman and the FSF prefer the "free software" wording and respective ideals, the GNU GPL is technically an open-source licence. --Jerebin (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Linux as a _family_ of operating systems

When I think Linux, I think of a wide family of operating systems comprising Ubuntu to Red-Hat, Minix to Tiny-core-linux, each of them having in common the same fundamental structure: the Linux kernel or, in case we refer to GNU/Linux, the Linux kernel accompanied by the GNU user base software.

Most major Wikipedias explain Linux as a family of OSes right in the leading paragraph: German, Italian, Portuguese, Greek and Dutch. You can read them with Google's Translate

I think the current status of this wiki doesn't reflect the real thing. As of revision 479268060, my proposed change is:

Linux (/ˈlɪnəks/ LIN-əks or /ˈlɪnʊks/ LIN-uuks) is a family of Unix-like computer operating systems assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released October 5, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. The name Linux is often used to designate individual operating systems based on this kernel.

Medende (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick correction: Minix doesn't use Linux kernel. man with one red shoe 21:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

All of those are merely different distributions of the same Linux OS, not different operating systems. They've packaged Linux with different sets of applications, compilers, drivers and so on, configured differently for different hardware and different markets. But it's the same OS with the same system call interface and, except for the release, the same kernel. Msnicki (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The commonplace misunderstanding of an OS is a software package that can run and be utilized on a computer. Casual readers leave this page with a misunderstanding. This needs to be addressed. The idea stems from every mainstream distro referring to itself as an OS, and Microsoft plus Apple calls all their different OS versions OS, just for simplicity's sake. Plus the articles for Windows and OSX both describe them as series, not operating systems. --Nicholas Davidowicz (talk) 07:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge paragraph GNU/Linux into GNU paragraph

The name GNU/Linux is very important to the GNU Project, and free software users. I think that the issue should both be near the top of the article, and part of the GNU paragraph. Merging the paragraphs would solve both of those issues. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan 9001 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That would lend it undue weight. The naming dispute may be important within the realm of free software, particularly in terms of the perceived global impact of the GNU Project, but in terms of the overall impact of Linux on society it's little more than a footnote. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Calling GNU "little more than a footnote" I think is actually unfairly taking away too much credit from the GNU Project. As I've said before, the real problem is that we already have a Linux kernel article--this article is largely redundant information. The only thing added in this article in comparison to the Linux kernel article is additional misinformation and confusion. I believe it should either be removed completely or it's scope narrowed to GNU/Linux specifically. Alternately, if a broad article about the operating systems that use the Linux kernel is desirable, perhaps the article name should be changed appropriately. Zack Buhman 16:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhmanator (talk • contribs)

Chris, what are you talking about? The "Linux" operating system is the GNU operating system combined with the Linux kernel. If the GNU operating system didn't already exist for Linux to be used with, it is unlikely that Linux would ever been developed beyond a hobby project, or at all. In addition, it was the GNU project -- a talk by Richard Stallman in particular -- that inspired Linus Torvalds to make Linux free software. It was GNU activists that appealed to the BSD developers and convinced them to open their operating system as well. Without the GNU project there would likely be no free and open operating systems today. Finally, the GNU project has contributed the plurality of the effort involved in creating the "Linux" operating system. Codewise, they've contributed at least ten times as much as Linux, and it was their efforts beginning almost a decade prior that created and sustained the very community that built Linux. And you say their impact is "little more than a footnote"?? 184.78.155.105 (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Linux can survive and run without GNU. GNU on the other cannot run with out Linux. Android is a prime example. At the very least this would make it Linux/GNU as Linux is obviously the more important piece. This is why I find "Linux" correct and "GNU/Linux" is the FSF is still GNU/Trolling. They should stop whining and focus on finishing Hurd... I mean... really... 20 something years and it's still not very usable with more bugs than a roach motel? Aizenmyou (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is GNU surviving without Linux. JordiGH (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can run the GNU userland tools on a kernel other than Linux, but we all know that very few people, comparatively, choose to do that. It was the creation of the Linux kernel and its subsequent success that made the GNU Project's work relevant. GNU has tried and failed for 29 years to come up with a working kernel of its own; until they figure it out, they should shut up and be quite grateful that Linus Torvalds did what they couldn't. Jsc1973 (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Quote "until they figure it out, they should shut up and be quite grateful that Linus Torvalds did what they couldn't" While I agree that the Linux kernel has made it possible for a free system to be usable, remember that Linus Torvalds has different beliefs than GNU and that is why he allows non-free firmware to be included with the kernel, also most operating systems that the use the kernel from kernel.org have non-free software included with the system. GNU fears that if Linux systems become widely used people will not care about free software. This is why they ask us to say GNU/Linux, so people are aware of it's existence in most Linux Distributions. Ziiike (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Target: "Personal computers"

Could the first entry in the list "Marketing Target" (Personal computers) be removed, or at least put at the end? Linux is virtually non-existant in the personal computer space, even though you hate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Tens of millions of PCs is quite aways from "virtually nonexistant", however small a percentage of the market share that ends up working out to. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 11:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Linux vs. NetBSD

There is no references about NetBSD and Linux comparisons, and therefore it cannot be called "most ported". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.201.212 (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ι'd јuѕt lіkе tο іntеrјесt fοr а mοmеnt.

Collapsing copypasted meme. Search Google for "I'd just like to interject"

Wһаt уοu'rе rеfеrrіng tο аѕ Lіnux, іѕ іn fасt, GΝU/Lіnux, οr аѕ Ι'vе rесеntlу tаkеn tο саllіng іt, GΝU рluѕ Lіnux. Lіnux іѕ nοt аn οреrаtіng ѕуѕtеm untο іtѕеlf, but rаtһеr аnοtһеr frее сοmрοnеnt οf а fullу funсtіοnіng GΝU ѕуѕtеm mаdе uѕеful bу tһе GΝU сοrеlіbѕ, ѕһеll utіlіtіеѕ аnd vіtаl ѕуѕtеm сοmрοnеntѕ сοmрrіѕіng а full OS аѕ dеfіnеd bу ΡOSΙX. Mаnу сοmрutеr uѕеrѕ run а mοdіfіеd vеrѕіοn οf tһе GΝU ѕуѕtеm еvеrу dау, wіtһοut rеаlіzіng іt. Τһrοugһ а ресulіаr turn οf еvеntѕ, tһе vеrѕіοn οf GΝU wһісһ іѕ wіdеlу uѕеd tοdау іѕ οftеn саllеd "Lіnux", аnd mаnу οf іtѕ uѕеrѕ аrе nοt аwаrе tһаt іt іѕ bаѕісаllу tһе GΝU ѕуѕtеm, dеvеlοреd bу tһе GΝU Ρrοјесt. Τһеrе rеаllу іѕ а Lіnux, аnd tһеѕе реοрlе аrе uѕіng іt, but іt іѕ јuѕt а раrt οf tһе ѕуѕtеm tһеу uѕе. Lіnux іѕ tһе kеrnеl: tһе рrοgrаm іn tһе ѕуѕtеm tһаt аllοсаtеѕ tһе mасһіnе'ѕ rеѕοurсеѕ tο tһе οtһеr рrοgrаmѕ tһаt уοu run. Τһе kеrnеl іѕ аn еѕѕеntіаl раrt οf аn οреrаtіng ѕуѕtеm, but uѕеlеѕѕ bу іtѕеlf; іt саn οnlу funсtіοn іn tһе сοntеxt οf а сοmрlеtе οреrаtіng ѕуѕtеm. Lіnux іѕ nοrmаllу uѕеd іn сοmbіnаtіοn wіtһ tһе GΝU οреrаtіng ѕуѕtеm: tһе wһοlе ѕуѕtеm іѕ bаѕісаllу GΝU wіtһ Lіnux аddеd, οr GΝU/Lіnux. All tһе ѕο-саllеd "Lіnux" dіѕtrіbutіοnѕ аrе rеаllу dіѕtrіbutіοnѕ οf GΝU/Lіnux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.133.201.84 (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true. Linux, without even one line of GNU code, is a real, complete OS. I think you're confusing an OS with a distribution, which adds all the application-layer stuff like compilers, editors, shells, etc. -- stuff that runs on top of the OS -- that an end-user might require. Msnicki (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't outright remove it since you responded, but they weren't trying to actually make a point, it's just a copypasted meme so I collapsed it. - SudoGhost 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm okay if you remove it, including my comments. Thank you, SudoGhost. Msnicki (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

An outside question

I have to admit that it was the first time I read this article, and I am just puzzled by what it states. I have never, ever heard of the Linux operating system; I know that there are several Linux distributions that use the Linux kernel and some of the GNU packages (for instance--there are more similarities between them), but I haven't been able to find the Linux operating system yet.

If it does exist, and is released under the GNU GPL, could some helpful soul please point me to a website I could download it from? And, please, don't point me to the website of the kernel, or a distribution; I'd like to download the Linux operating system. Thanks, odder (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

PS As an additional thought, I also see that the article focuses more on the various Linux distributions (and uses this specific term) than on the system itself.

Suggestion to revise introduction

I recently had a conversation with a newbie who wanted to know "where do I download the Linux operating system?" At first I thought he meant the Linux kernel, but he actually meant the entire operating system. It took me some time to explain that you download Linux distributions, and that there is no single central official Linux OS. The lede and introduction of this article does not help to dispel this impression, describing Linux as simply "a Unix-like computer operating system." Despite the fact that versions of Windows are far less diverse than distros of Linux, the Microsoft Windows article still describes it as a "series" of operating systems rather than simply "an operating system". However, I am also aware of the deeply entrenched Linux / GNU/Linux name conflict, and would prefer to avoid that as well. I would suggest something similar to the following:

Linux is a family of free and open source operating systems, maintained by different organizations, each based on the Linux kernel.

Failing this, could we add something to clarify the fact that there is no single, official Linux OS? Thank you! Dcoetzee 22:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 could perhaps do with a little clarification on the "no official vendor" point, but the lead sentence arrived at its present succinct state after copious discussion (see the talk archives). It needs to impart information first and foremost, rather than being mush designed not to offend anyone. (As for versions of proprietary OSes being "far less diverse than distros of Linux", what is currently known as Microsoft Windows uses a completely new kernel from what was commonly known as Microsoft Windows fifteen years ago, which in turn was derived from an iterative rewrite of a 16-bit OS. Let's not even discuss what happened with Mac OS.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should not say organization because that is saying that all distrobutions are mantained by a company, and this is false, anyone can create an os that uses the linux kernel. Also Linux is a kernel, not an os, so we should say that linux is the commonly used name for the systems, rather than the system itself, like this.

Linux is the name used for a family of free and open source operating systems, maintained by different groups, each based on the Linux kernel.

Again, this is my opinion. A consensus may be needed for this. Ziiike (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please take the time to peruse the talk archives (voluminous I know, but packed with information) regarding the "only a kernel" point. That is an opinion rather than a fact, and rather a minority one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have good arguments why the article intro is fine as it is, could you state them here instead of telling people to go and read the talk page archives? Or at least link to the relevant sections in the archives. Count Truthstein (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything that could be said about this issue was said a thousand times... asking people to repeat themselves only because you cannot be bothered to read what was written before is not a reasonable request. man with one red shoe 03:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone summarize what was said before? Reading through the past pages states that there is major confusion about, GNU, GNU/Linux, Linux and Linux Distribution.

• GNU, A free software project.

• GNU/Linux, A Linux distribution that contains large amounts of GNU code

• Linux, a kernel developed by Linus Torvalds

• Linux Distribution, an operating system that uses Linux as it's kernel.

I think that there should be a page for GNU, a page for Linux, and a page for Linux distribution. I think that this page will be have to be divided and merged to those articles. I am likely repeating what has been said before, yet, it is not feasible to salvage through 6 years of text trying to find the answer. Can someone who has been following this for more time than me summarize the outcome of previous options presented? I am sorry if this is not helping, but this article contains mass amounts of confusing information, and something should be done. Ziiike (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite - GNU/Linux is not a Linux distribution - it refers to any Linux distribution or operating system based on Linux which uses a substantial quantity of GNU projects. (On a second look, that could be what you said.) Then we have the use of the word "Linux" to mean something very similar to "GNU/Linux" - not Linux, but an operating system which uses Linux. Count Truthstein (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said, I think a GNU/Linux page does not need to exist as relevant information from Linux can be moved to the Linux distribution article, or the information from the Linux distribution article can be moved to Linux, however this seems to be a previous attempted merge, but I think it would be best if the Linux Kernel information from this article were distributed to Linux Kernel, and then Linux distribution can be merge into this one. Does this idea stand a chance?

Ziiike (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Not with me. I'm pretty tired of this recurring FSF agenda to paste the name GNU onto every reference to Linux. It's a transparent attempt to take credit for something they didn't do and it's based on confusing people about what an operating system is. An operating system is not all the applications that anyone runs on it. An operating system (as correctly defined here on Wikipedia) is the software that manages the hardware resources and provides services for applications. Msnicki (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't what I said though, I said that we don't need a GNU/Linux page, what I am saying is that this page seems to be a combination of Linux Distribution and Linux Kernel and such is confusing.

Ziiike (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let me try again. I disagree with the argument that we should divide this article into separate distribution and kernel articles. It'd be the camel's nose in the tent to paste GNU onto Linux in the distribution article and from there to everywhere else. Msnicki (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would that happen? The article would be called Linux distribution and would contain information about components of a Linux distribution, including those provided by the GNU project. This doesn't mean that the article would refer to such distributions as GNU/Linux. Count Truthstein (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It would happen because that's the FSF agenda. Msnicki (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What is this "FSF agenda" you keep referring to?

Ziiike (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see GNU/Linux naming controversy, identified as the main article at Linux#GNU/Linux in this article. Msnicki (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the idea I said above, GNU has nothing to do with this, I said that Linux and Linux distribution and Linux Kernel are confused in this article, and this article should either have kernel relevant information merged into Linux Kernel and then merged with Linux distribution or that this article should have kernel relevant information merged into Linux Kernel and then Linux distribution merged with this.

Ziiike (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You asked what the FSF agenda was and I answered. The point is, you're welcome to your opinion but there's a long-standing consensus that opposes you and as several editors have tried to explain, it's probably not going to change. Msnicki (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus is for GNU/Linux, I am not saying anything about GNU/Linux, I am saying that "Linux" article is a combination of Linux Kernel and Linux Distribution, I said that it may be wise to move kernel information to Linux Kernel, and then merge Linux Distribution into Linux or the reverse of that, the GNU/Linux consensus does not apply as I am not trying to rename the article, in fact, I said at the beginning of one of my posts that a GNU/Linux page does not need to exist. You referring to GNU/Linux long standing consensus is completely irrelevant.

Ziiike (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Linux article discusses Linux kernel and Linux distribution the same way the Atlanta article discusses History of Atlanta and Economy of Atlanta, this is the primary article for the subject, and it needs to at least touch base on what makes Linux what it is. Also, the longstanding consensus on Wikipedia is not for the use of "GNU/Linux" as that is a term not used by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, it is a fringe term. - SudoGhost 23:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, although an operating system is different that a city. Does anyone support my idea to merge away Linux Distribution or reverse?

Ziiike (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. If you're focusing on "operating system is different than a city" then you're missing the point by a mile; the content is not the point, how the content is handled is. There is absolutely no reason to "merge away" content from this article. - SudoGhost 01:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a good idea. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Could we please stop feeding this? The editor who raised this has been pointed at our FAQ and the talk archives: it is not worth anyone's time to attempt to re-argue the point over the name simply because that editor deigns not to heed those directions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to expect anybody to read through 35 pages of archives to find the place that a supposed consensus was reached. In the archives which I have read, people have put forward various arguments about the name and purpose of this article. I understand by a consensus that the majority of editors will be convinced on the virtues of the arguments put forth towards the consensus, but when did this happen? Even if this happened, it is still acceptable to discuss questions such as these because consensus can change. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not unreasonable to expect that editors should be able to browse the archive box, which contains a prominent link to talk:Linux/Name, an exhaustive RfC on the subject. Asking for it to be summarised yet again here is no more reasonable than turning up at talk:theory of evolution and asking for a summary of the discussion which led to the consensus that Wikipedia present the theory of evolution as fact. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I can see people coming to this page and asking again and again for explanations and summaries, if they don't do their minimum due diligence they don't really deserve an answer. Also, if they don't come up with new arguments or new ideas nobody has to re-debate the same debates that went for 20 pages or more. The header of the talk page does a good job of informing the people of the issues that were already talked to death:

• Merge this article with Linux distribution: No, this is a WP:SUMMARY style article for the broader Linux picture
• Can we rename this page to GNU/Linux? No, the vast majority of people and companies call it Linux, and we already mention the alternate name in the lead and its own subsection.
• Do we need the GNU history? Yes, GNU played an important role in the development of Linux as we know it today.
• For previously discussed criticism of Linux, see Archive 2, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 10, Archive 17, and Archive 20.

man with one red shoe 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The box labelled "Useful info from archives" doesn't actually link to archives, apart from discussion of criticism of Linux, which isn't what is being discussed here. It appears just to be a list of somebody's opinions. Regarding the link to talk:Linux/Name, that it is a discussion of something different. To repeat what User:Ziiike said up the page: "The long-standing consensus is for GNU/Linux, I am not saying anything about GNU/Linux, I am saying that "Linux" article is a combination of Linux Kernel and Linux Distribution, I said that it may be wise to move kernel information to Linux Kernel, and then merge Linux Distribution into Linux or the reverse of that, the GNU/Linux consensus does not apply as I am not trying to rename the article, in fact, I said at the beginning of one of my posts that a GNU/Linux page does not need to exist. You referring to GNU/Linux long standing consensus is completely irrelevant." Do you understand why the page talk:Linux/Name is irrelevant to what is being discussed here, apart from a few short sections like Talk:Linux/Name#Primary_meaning_is_.22Linux_distribution.22? It is quite clear that no consensus was reached in those sections, just different editors stating their opinions. Count Truthstein (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be going round and round one central point: Yes, everyone understands that you and Ziiike would like to make a change and that you don't think the reasons the rest of us have given for opposing a change are very good or even particularly responsive to your arguments. But here on WP, it's not enough to have what you think is the better argument. You have to have consensus support. You don't have that nor is it happening. That's the part that's getting tedious for the rest of us. Msnicki (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No..... The reason I posted this here is to gain consensus. What is tedious for all of you? All I am asking for is everyones opinion and trying to find a common ground, if that happens there will be a consensus. I am saying the Linux and Linux Distribution are the same thing in the context that most people use the term "Linux". Linux, commonly means an operating system that includes the Linux Kernel. A Linux Distribution commonly means an operating system that includes the Linux Kernel. I am asking that to be addressed and asking for opinions. As there was no consensus reached, it ended because someone rudely criticized one of the users in the argument. Perhaps this idea of merging Linux Distribution into this article can be considered?

Ziiike (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No. A thousand times, no. Msnicki (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Distribution != Operating system. Each are distinct... And at this moment in time, where Linux is integrated into so many gadgets, the distinction is getting even more important. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The search box is not that hard to use. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, where is the consensus? At Talk:Linux/Archive_15#Merged_version you suggested that the articles should be merged, the opposite of your opinion now. Please try and be more civil in your comments and implying that the people who disagree with you are idiots. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I once disagreed with it, and then after a very long discussion my position changed. I'm not implying that anyone is an idiot, but nor am I devoting any more of my own time (far too much of which has been sunk into this talk page already) summarising the results of previous discussions simply to be told that my recollection is faulty because it doesn't match up with a given newcomer's expectations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)