Jump to content

Talk:Linux/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50→Archive 53

Linux and its status as an operating system

@Kb333: Regarding your edit, please read these two archived discussions, which are also linked in the archiving notice box on top of this talk page: Talk:Linux/Archive 41 § Page move: GNU/Linux and Talk:Linux/Name. These discussions reflect a rather broad consensus regarding Linux and its status as an operating system, and its relation with the Linux kernel. As a side note, please also be aware of the WP:3RR rule. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dsimic: firstly I'm not a zealot, I know all about Linux based systems, Linux and GNU. I know that GNU and Linux are totally different, but also I dont like when the people give the whole thing to Linux for an OS just using it. so as a neutral POV, any OS that uses Linux kernel is not an OS part of Linux, but it's an OS WHICH CONTAINS Linux or better a Linux based OS: so thats why you should avoid the term "Linux OS" or "Linux distribution". correct me if I'm wrong. Kb333 (talk contribs) 27 March 2015
Have you read the discussions linked above, in their entire lengths? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
We have a very longstanding and broad consensus here on Wikipedia that operating systems using the Linux kernel are called Linux and Linux distributions. Please read WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:LINUX, this talk:Linux page including all the archives of that page, to get the history of the consensus as well as Talk:Linux/Name. Please read them. - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I understand from that, that you are pushing your own definitions and POVs dictatorially and restricting the others, instead of trying to make those informations be more neutral and correct. Kb333 (talk contribs) 27 March 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, even the fact that the sky is mostly blue is someone's POV, right? Why should we use "blue" to name a color? Why shouln't that color be instead called "xyled", for example? That's why people discuss the things and follow the conclusions – and our conclusions regarding Linux vs. GNU/Linux are available from those archived discussions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Who is the "you" in "you are pushing your own definitions..."? Wikipedia's policies and guidelines require editors to reach a broad and rational consensus on such an issue, and this they have done. All I see here are a couple of individuals who have the grace to point you to the discussions. If you believe that insufficient WP:WEIGHT has been given to the distinctions, that is a different issue. I am inclined to agree with you there up to a point, although one needs also to consider other projects/organisations and their licensed code which appears in a typical "GNU/Linux" OS build, such as the Apache Foundation, BSD, MIT, Oracle, etc. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I was meaning by "you" anyone here who was restricting my edits behind a "Linux OS" naming monopoly. You still don't understand what I mean, I'm not a "GNU/Linux" spammer, I'm rejecting the naming of Linux as an OS because as was been said, the systems that contains Linux can contain other softwares not just GNU ones but also others whether free or proprietary. So naming the whole system as Linux will not give equal mention to people who had developed the biggest part of such operating system using that kernel whether free software communities creating essential components like Wayland, Java, KDE, X11, Bash, GRUB, GLibc, GCC, MySQL, OpenOffice, GNOME, GNU Coreutils, Apache to be distributed in free OS like Debian, or proprietary software companies distributing their nonfree software along with the resulting free software inside their own OS like SteamOS and nonfree Android. so Why should we use the term "Linux distribution" while MS Windows and OSX are not called NT or Darwin distros? I hope that you have understood what I was meaning. Kb333 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong, Kb333, but you seem to be mostly asking questions like "why the sky is not xyled?" Well, because people call its color "blue". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It's true that the sky is blue when the weather is sunny, but its color changes to grey when it becomes cloudy. Kb333 (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Consensus-building does have rules. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have a lot to say about things like reliable sourcing and giving content due weight. Tertiary sources such as introductory text books and specialist magazines are the best places to judge the common terms in use and the due weight to be given to less common approaches. These may give a nod to GNU/Linux and related issues but they almost all use the plain description "Linux" when talking of the OS. This is consistent with the consensus reached here - as it should be. I guess if you don't like it, write to the editor of Linux Format and get him to change his mind. Then we can follow suit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Such tertiary sources tend not to describe Android as "Linux", even though it is no more nor less Linux than the GNU-based builds and many Android code hacks have found their way upstream into the Linux kernel. This is bizarrely inconsistent, but here on wikipedia we just have to close our eyes and swallow. Urgh! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was so happy when Android's Binder was merged into the Linux kernel mainline in kernel version 3.19. :) Speaking of Android, more precisely some kind of a consensus is that Android is Linux, while it isn't a true Linux distribution. So, yay! :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Finally, I have to say that anyone who is restricting other edits behind a dirty consensus, is a weak and looser guy who doesn't want to improve the world nor himself enjoying the slavery of the control of big brother and its resulting lies, rather than together fighting for making the infos more correct and neutral. I'm really sad, to find a lot of people including you, who are together trying to be non honest nor serious and pushing wrong informations: the thing which is currently a big threat to the neutrality and truth of information for many people visiting such related articles. Also that can reflect that you are not skilled nor professional, when considering a kernel as an OS: which can appear like a joke. Of course Linux is a kernel, and not an operating system. I'm not the only one to say that: there is a lot of honnest and well experienced people who can tell you the same thing. Kb333 (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The consensus isn't "dirty" as you're calling it. Please read your own words – you should seriously reconsider and recollect your own thoughts, instead of calling other people "not skilled nor professional". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Kb333, your editing borders with what's known as disruptive editing, and your edits paired with a clear lack of constructive discussion may be seen as edit warring. Also, your posts include personal attacks, which are totally unnecessary as our focus should be to comment on the content, not on the contributors. With all that, you're presenting yourself in a bad light, and risk to be reported and become blocked. Please see this as a friendly assessment of your behavior. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Wait, so is Linux just a kernel, or an operating system? 184.17.173.136 (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh wait, this article is talking about GNU and the Linux kernel as a whole, which is also called Linux. I understand now! 184.17.173.136 (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Only idiots like you call it as "Linux", not all the people: or maybe the people who calls Mac OSX as Darwin do so .... this article in reality talks only about Linux (a kernel and not an os) and the operating systems based on it, but forcing the definition of Linux mainly as an OS seems unjustified: and it's clear that no one should trust this nonfree encyclopedia where the consensus is gaming the system. 41.224.86.111 (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Please stay away from personal attacks, see WP:PERSONAL for more details. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus has been reached. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I propose merging Criticism of Linux with Linux the Criticism article has been tagged for not meeting NPOV and both articles would be better served merged together. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached. We can get a 3rd party if we need to , but I am putting the merge tag on since the merge discussion is still going onBryce Carmony (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If the Article is too long the fork should happen along content lines not POV lines. If we need to make a "history of Linux" page and divert content there we can. but saying the division will happen along the lines of view point is a violation of Neutral Point of View. NPOV trumps Article length. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- These are distinct topics. Linux should be about linux in its current form, with brief mentions of history and criticisms. Incidentally History of linux already exists, so content here should not duplicate its content. Tayste (edits) 20:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, generally, I agree with Ahunt. I add that "functional" splits are completely normal, common, and the Microsoft articles already used as an example of that in the past. Further, I'd go on to suggest, that were any merging to be done in this area, then Criticism of desktop Linux should be merged back in to Criticism of Linux. "Criticism of Linux" looks a bit bare, and unevenly weighted to a non-neutral critic (MS), but oh well, so it goes in the industry. I can "deal" with it. My feelings really aren't hurt. "Criticism of Linux" needs work, fleshing out, as it were.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    You are correct that there is a distinction of topic, the distinction is we have allowed ourselves to make 2 articles for 2 different POVs instead of 1 article for 1 POV. Historical criticisms of course can be added in a NPOV to the History of Linux Page. but any criticism that is current should be merged here. if it is sourced and verified we can write it in the NPOV and merge it into the content of the boby. if it has a bad source or is unverifiable we can eliminate it. Neutral Point of view isn't "Neutral Praise one article" and "Neutral Criticism other article" That isn't what Wikipedia is about. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    There are many criticism articles in Wikipedia. NPOV applies to how WP deals with the content in the sources, not the topic itself. I agree that Criticism of desktop Linux should be merged with Criticism of Linux. But neither should be merged with Linux (which should also be neutral, not a "praise" article). Tayste (edits) 22:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    There are roughly 150 "criticism of..." Articles. 150/300,000,000+ shows that Criticism of articles are exceptions not norms. Can we agree it would be better to have a wikipedia with 3 million articles that all have a NPOV of positive, nuetral, and critical information. or would it be better to have a Wikipedia with 6 million articles where criticism is in a "contra-article" and non criticism is in the "article". That isn't what Wikipedia is about. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    Articles on nematodes are also the exception not the norm, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any. Your view on "what Wikipedia is about" matters less than Wikipedia's own view, as documented in the five pillars, one of which is that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. "Linux" and "Criticisms of Linux" are two different topics, with different audiences of readers. Both should be (separate) articles, both written from a NPOV. Given that the topic for the latter is controversial/opinionated, that article should be written with additional care to maintain NPOV, e.g. by also citing sources that respond to criticisms. Merging it here doesn't solve that. Tayste (edits) 23:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree that they are 2 different topics. Here's an example. Art criticism is not titled "Criticism of Art" because Art is the modifier and Criticism is the object being modified. "Criticism of Linux" and "Linux" the word "Linux" is the object in both. So they aren't two separate topics they are the same topic. So can a single topic have more than one article? of course. Some topics have dozens of articles. but what we don't allow is for that same topic to be treated twice by two seperate POV. we call that Content Forking and it's bad because it goes against NPOV.Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    Well, I've said my piece, so I'll wait now for views from other editors. Good luck with your campaign to have all "Criticism of X" articles either removed or merged with their main articles. For what it's worth, I'll point out that Art criticism refers to the practice of voicing criticisms of individual works of art, not of the concept of Art itself. Tayste (edits) 23:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    PS: a better example is to compare Islam and Criticism of Islam. Tayste (edits) 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    I appreciate your input, Criticizing art is a profession, a science, and an art in and of itself. that's why it's the Art Criticism. not Criticism of Art. When you look at the article criticism of art has "methodology" "history" things like that. not "This one painting sucks according to so and so" "So and so said this painting is ugly" that's not what art criticism is. If we felt that the criticism of Linux was such a flushed out concept that we called it Linux criticism. maybe we could make a great article out of it. but as is I just see it as an attempt to white wash the Linux article. Thanks for giving your input it really is helpful. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As Ahunt already explained above, Linux article is already quite long so merging anything into it would be against WP:SIZESPLIT, for example. Also, if an article has some issues, merging it with another article isn't the way for fixing those issues. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    A question for Ahunt, if you could indulge a hypothetical. if you had to chose between violating NPOV and violating a guideline what would you chose.Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'd choose neither, as it's quite easy to go by the guidelines. Also, WP:NPOV is just one of the guidelines/policies. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    So you're alright with us merging the 2 articles on the same topic to be 1 article on the 1 topic. good. I'm glad we have you onboard Dsimic Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    Well, I'm not sure why are you trying to twist my words? I've clearly expressed that I do not support the merger proposal. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    Let's see if we can find where we disagree. 1- do you agree its a bad idea to have 2 articles for the same exact topic? if so, what are the 2 topics in "Criticism of Linux" and "Linux" to me it looks like they have the same topic ( Linux ) but I want to understand your viewBryce Carmony (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    There isn't much new to be discussed about the whole thing. My opinion is that having two separate articles is a good thing, as their topics aren't the same. Moreover, having two separate articles keeps much of the politics out of the main article, Linux, which is also already quite long so merging more stuff into it would be against WP:SIZESPLIT. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    Having 2 articles for the same topic is a content fork. which is against guidelines and npov. should we have 2 articles for the holocaust? one that we don't allow any "criticism" in and one that we put all the criticism in? it makes no sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    Please have a look at WP:SIZESPLIT, it allows such "two-article" layouts. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    that's what I'm proposing, we split the content, the difference is you want to split it by "criticism" and "not criticism" ( a pov split) and I want to split it by topic. like (history of linux, linux products, linux hardware, etc ) the content split is prefferable to a POV split since a pov split inevitably takes us away form NPOV. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    Nope. What you've proposed is a merger. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons outlined above and particular by user Aladdin Sane. See also WP:SUMMARYSTYLE: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own" and, of course, WP:SPINOFF and WP:SPLIT. Wikipedia supports splits like this where they make sense either because of article length or context, both of which apply here. (This is starting to look like a consensus). andy (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
See but you aren't making a subtopic... you are keeping the SAME topic. let me explain
  • Linux = the topic of this article is Linux
  • Criticism of Linux = the topic of this article is Linux ( modified by criticism as the POV [not NPOV])
  • Linux Criticism = the topic of this article is Criticism ( modified by Linux as the type of crticism )
Imagine if we had articles "Praise of Linux" we couldn't allow for that. but we allow for criticism of? please. we can create 1 article for the topic of linux. we can make NEW topics ( like history of linux ) but you don't get to say "NPOV is too hard" and give up on it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Your logic is flawed. You say "Criticism of Linux = the topic of this article is Linux" but of course that's not true. The topic is criticism of Linux, which is why that's the title of the article. According to your logic all articles on subtopics should be merged into the same main article if their titles are of the form "subtopic of X". From this absurd premise you are constructing specious arguments. andy (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The largest installed base of all...

In the lead, we say, "Thanks to its dominance on smartphones, Android, which is built on top of the Linux kernel, has the largest installed base of all general-purpose operating systems.[14]" Does this mean that Android has the largest installed base of all general-purpose operating systems on mobile devices, or of all general-purpose operating systems on any hardware of any type? The reference to NetMarketShare shows a piechart with Android having a 51.04% market share for 'mobile + tablet'[1]. When I change the 'device type' to 'desktop', Windows has a 90.85% market share.[2] Unfortunately, if I select 'device type' = 'all' I get told that I cannot see this as I am not a subscriber. Is anyone here able to see the crucial figures to WP:Verify whether Android's dominance in mobile devices outdoes Windows' desktop dominance to justify our sentence as it stands? If it does, should we remove the ambiguity and make the sentence exactly clear as to which installed base we are talking about? --Nigelj (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Based on the references in Android (operating system) article, it should be that Android currently has the largest installed base of all general-purpose operating systems. Just as the sentence reads, not limited to any particular device type (mobile, desktop, etc.). — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject for a moment

What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.185.230 (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times, please see the talk page archives and specific discussions linked in the archives box on top of this page. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the article about

The article claims to be about the Linux Operating system (sometimes also referred to as Gnu/Linux). However it seems to alternate between talking about the kernel and system. Examples include, but not limited to: initial release date (This is the kernel date of 1991), not the wholes system date; initial CPU architecture of x86 (true for kernel, not rest of system). I rely don't care what we call this system as long as it dose not lead to confusion. How can we reduce this confusion, can we write an advice page for contributors to read, so that they are aware of the two meanings, and write about the correct one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.30.101 (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

linux genealogy

would be very usefull talk about the linux genealogy on this article, this is specially important once the distros have heritage relations between them which are usefull to an overview of the distribution of the family's capacities and resources though them and also to look for documentations about linux resources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeferson.lem (talk • contribs) 00:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think what you are looking for is at List of Linux distributions. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

GPL v2 vs. others even GPLv3

About this revert. You are right as I pointed out in the edit summary or meant to say "The kernel can only be licensed under the GPL v2". E.g. you can't relicense to any other license including GPLv3. Maybe some other wording is better. I know outside of the kernel GPLv3 is also used, but maybe still more GPLv2? The infobox already says "GPLv2 and other [..]". Similarily in the Android article, Apache 2.0 and GPLv2 (but not BSD, that is also used in Bionic, should it be included or is that a minor detail/library..?). comp.arch (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As we know, Linux, as an operating system, is made of a huge collection of software, some of which may even not be open-source. Thus, there would be very few reasons to limit the description of Linux as an operating system to any particular license. When looking solely at the Linux kernel, AFAIK there's even bigger mess as some licenses under which the Linux kernel code is contributed are only compatible with GPLv2, and that seems to be Ok. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
"such as the GNU General Public License" implies to me, at least, that you could just change the license, not that it is one of many. In any case, the GPLv2 (or in some cases GPL-compatible code also in the kernel) is very fundamental for the kernel, and if you would get rid of GPLv2 code, you would not have a Linux distro, as you would not have a kernel any more. You *could* take most anything else out of it, bash, GCC etc. comp.arch (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Would you find this wording tweak to be a clarity improvement? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation in lead is bogus

The pronunciation in the lead is garbage. Linus pronounces it as lee-nooks. He's the creator and should be regarded as the ultimate authority WRT to the pronunciation. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IfHm6R5le0 Spacerat3004 (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linux/Archive_48&oldid=701360691"