Jump to content

Talk:Linux/Archive 51

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53

Move to GNU/Linux

The most common family of operating systems is GNU/Linux. Android is another family. Other families are based on µlibc and other operating system runtimes. Because of this, this page should be moved to GNU/Linux because it talks about the operating system based on the GNU runtime system and runtime libraries: Glibc, GOMP, GNU binutils, GNU Coreutils. I advocate for a dedicated page for each of the operating systems which have Linux as their kernel, as already has Android. Then, move the page Linux Kernel to Linux. The other less known OSes using a different combination of runtime + Linux could be put into a section inside the new Linux article. Filiprino (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You pushed and pushed and pushed this agenda last month despite attempts by many editors to explain there is an existing consensus based on WP:COMMONNAME. In the closing, you were cautioned to respect the consensus and stop your uncivil WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. Nothing has changed, not even your behavior. Please give it a rest. Msnicki (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not see any consensus. If there was consensus, then the article would not be debated continously. On top of that, I do not only talk about the name, but about the contents. Additionaly, some of you were told to stop following my user page, because some of you were abusing me. Filiprino (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Seriously WP:DEADHORSE, drop the stick. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I am a spanish Wikipedia editor. And I have contributed to the GNU/Linux article on there. I am just armonizing contents among different languages to stop this Linux, GNU/Linux, musl/Linux, µlibc/Linux, etc are the same but Android no bullshit. Because facts are facts and writing about controversies and ignoring contributions from different parties is not nice. Filiprino (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

GNU/Linux at Unix article

GNU/Linux has come up again at the Unix article. I hope it is appropriate to discuss here even though it's at a different article, I figured the editors watching this page would be the most aware. Caco13 first did a global replace of Linux with GNU/Linux, which I reverted, and Abhilash Mhaisne reverted me. Now Abhilash has taken up the argument on my user page. From a quick look here I can see it comes up often and has already been hashed out (at least with no consensus for a change). I would appreciate it if I could pass this off to interested parties here as it's not a dispute I really wish to take up. Proponents of the change may find less resistance at a different article than if they tried to do it here. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Old references in Market share and uptake

Specifically in section titled "Market share and uptake" and subsection "Web Servers" there is a reference using "W3Cooks". The citation referring to "W3Cooks" does not direct to a relevant reference any more. An quick web search does not find any decent equivalent reference. Suggest that this statement be removed or updated with a reference to a cache of the page at the retrieval date. Siphayne (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this,  Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The titles of computer programs are to be written with italics

The titles of computer programs are to be written with italicized text. This includes the individual editions of Microsoft's prevalent operating system (OS), such as Windows 10. And Unix and Linux are to be italicized, when each word refers to its respective OS. Yet, Wikipedia's manual of style does not specify how we are to set the names of overall families of operating systems, in type. This article is full of references to various types and forms of information-technology media, as well as to the things which embody the shared elements that link these inter-related things together. When I read this article, I do not know which names and titles merit italicization, and which do not. Is the name of a "shell" to be italicized? What about a "kernel" or a "library" or a "family" or a "module" or any of the dozens of other concepts that this article treats? Publishers and publications with a focus on Information Technology (IT) must have already sorted these matters out, and developed and applied cohesive sets of rules that greatly increased the ease by which readers could comprehend such a technical topic. Right now, this article is so dense with undifferentiated names and titles of IT works and concepts that it is hard to understand their hierarchies and relationships. An editor with knowhow must apply an effective system of italicization upon the many Information Technology works and concepts that are found in this article, the sooner the better. catsmoke (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No, that is not the general convention in English for software titles. Only games get italics. See WP:ITALICTITLE. oknazevad (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Initial release

It is inaccurate to say that it was released on the year 1991. That is the date of Linux. The release notes of version 0.01 can be found here. Filiprino (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Small rework

Halfway through the opening paragraph it takes a right turn out of nowhere. We have two sentences that form a clear, concise synopsis of Linux that would flow beautifully into the next paragraph which gets broken up by, "Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name. The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system family, as well as specific distributions, to emphasize that most Linux distributions are not just the Linux kernel, and that they have in common not only the kernel, but also numerous utilities and libraries, a large proportion of which are from the GNU project. This has led to some controversy." This is shoehorned in. It would fit better after the 4th paragraph which names 11 Linux distributions, 5 of which contain the word "Linux." But putting it there really highlights two problems: it's doesn't have enough info to give the reader any indication of why we're suddenly mentioning the Free Software Foundation, and it's inaccurate: the controversy isn't because they use the name GNU/Linux, it's because they consider themselves authorities on its naming and demand that everyone else call it GNU/Linux as well. So the blurb needs to be reworked, but I'm coming up blank on wording. Ideas? 2601:18B:8200:1040:F8FD:E01A:41A8:C3EA (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop using the Tux trademark as though it were the OS logo.

I made this improvement myself but it got reverted.

Tux is the mascot of the Linux kernel, which this article is explicitly not about. This is like using the United States flag in relation to the Americas. It seems to me that we are trying to have our cake and also eat it with regard to how the subject matter is referenced in Wikipedia. --Sisgeo (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

While Tux is officially the kernel mascot, he is widely associated by the public with Linux in general, as well as Linux operating systems as a family. As the Tux article explains, "Tux is the most commonly used icon for Linux, although different Linux distributions depict Tux in various styles. The character is used in many other Linux programs and as a general symbol of Linux." So so it is appropriate to have him in the info box for this article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Who says it is appropriate?, can you put a citation to established policy to your opinion? Wikipedia is not a democracy. Its contents should be based on expert sources commenting on the subject of Linux and its identity, so saying that the public associates Tux to something other than the kernel won't make the cut in an encyclopedia. By that logic, it is Wikipedia's duty to echo everything in List of common misconceptions, and delete that very article because it begs to differ with lay views on behalf of correctness. Yes!, I am aware of WP:Article titles, which is not even relevant to this discussion about logos, and second, is well below Wikipedia pillars such as WP:5P1 and WP:RS in the hierarchy of policy. I am eager for your response. --Sisgeo (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
A quick search shows up many dozens of popular and expert-source articles associating Tux with everything to do with Linux in the public imagination, from the OS in general to various distros, to Linux games and so on. This one article kind of sums it up nicely and is from a WP:RS. There are also thousands of examples of Tux being associated with anything related to the Linux OS, but you get the picture. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you trying to argue from selection bias or an appeal to popularity?, because neither of them is valid for Wikipedia standards. I have already explained to you why bare claims such as "A quick search shows up many dozens of..." followed by a single POV reference are of no help. I can provide dozens upon dozens of references explaining how Linux is only a kernel and Tux is none's logo but Linux's. By the way, where is consistency at the bigger picture being left? A quick search "shows up many dozens of popular and expert-sources articles" associating the Kleenex brand to facial tissue, Holland in lieu of the Netherlands, caustic soda to Sodium hydroxide and so on. Yet we don't see that ardent desire to commit to the popular conceptions alone across Wikipedia.--Sisgeo (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you are missing the bigger picture here as per WP:BRD. You made an edit (removing the image of Tux), I reverted and now we are here on the talk page, where the onus is on you to gain a consensus to make the edit you want to make. It is up to you to make a convincing enough case here that at least some of the many editors who watch this page feel you have convinced them enough to support you here. Unless you can gain a consensus to remove the image, it stays. So I don't have to make a case to keep it, you have to make a case to remove it. So far you haven't done that. - Ahunt (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Sisgeo. This article should not be showing Tux as an Operating System logo. It is used by the kernel. You can see it used in Linux web site. Filiprino (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Sisgeo. The fact that the public associates Tux with Linux as a whole is irrelevant. The Australian public consider Vegemite to be a symbol of Australia, but we wouldn't put the Vegemite logo in the info box as the main image for Australia. HappyGod (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There are many distros that use Tux as a symbol, which shows that it is not just the public that associates Tux with Linux operating system, but the people who make Linux OSs as well. Some examples: Linux From Scratch, Crux, LinHes, Linux Schools, Rebellin Linux, plus computer manufacturing OEMs, like Emperor Linux too. I think these examples show that it is not just the general public that associates Tux with all of Linux and not just the kernel, but that the devs and the industry do too. - Ahunt (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
While I accept and agree that the public and industry do associate the Tux image with Linux as a whole, I don't consider that to be grounds to use the image on the main Linux page. It isn't the symbol of Linux no matter how many people think it is. Therefore we should remove it.
If there are no more people to support its use before the 23rd March 2018, I'll take the conversation so far as a 3 to 1 against vote and remove it.HappyGod (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like more GNU/Linux rubbish. I don't see a problem with showing Tux on this page, since the kernel is what is common to all variants of Linux. There are not votes on Wikipedia, there is WP:CONSENSUS. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course Linux (the kernel) is what is common to all forms of operating systems including it. I could equally define GNU to be the set of all distros containing GNU stuff, and the observation that GNU is what is common to all of them would be analytically true. --Sisgeo (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Precisely, it is not a vote. There is good evidence for including Tux here and there is no clear consensus for removing the image. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
How can you objectively say there is or is not a prevailing view on a subject that has contention, if you don't resolve it democratically? Otherwise you'll just have a few vocal people trying to dominate the larger but quieter view of the opposition.
Anyhow, the solution here is clear. A section with the Tux image should be included. In it, it can be explained that the Tux image is widely viewed as a symbol of Linux etc. It is just not an official symbol of Linux and therefore shouldn't be placed in the infobox.
Additionally, talk of GNU conspiracies are pretty laughable —DIYeditor. I don't think even Stallman cares about that anymore!?HappyGod (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus: "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals; i.e., to achieve our five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." - Ahunt (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I just don't get what the objection is. We can still have a section, with the image. It could be clearly explained in that section all about the Tux image and its association with Linux. We surely must all agree that the image is not an OFFICIAL image of Linux. The infobox needs an OFFICIAL image.HappyGod (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"The infobox needs an OFFICIAL image." Where did you find that written? The documentation for the infobox template is found at Template:Infobox OS and it says: "An image path for the logo associated with this operating system. Logos used must comply with Wikipedia:Logos guidelines." This is the logo "associated with this operating system". There is nothing there that says it must only be the "official logo". I don't see any issues affecting this choice at Wikipedia:Logos, either. - Ahunt (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think it's fine to have the image of Tux on this page. I don't want to see it removed. True, it's the mascot of the kernel but that's not mutually exclusive with it also being a mascot of Linux in general. Is there an alternative image? If there's no official alternative, it's better to have Tux than nothing. What harm does it do there? Tayste (edits) 01:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
There's more to Wikipedia editing and its guidelines than what is expressed about them at face value. Swats of corporate money are vested in having GNU systematically replaced, for political reasons. Take for instance the following anonymous edits which went well beyond what MOS:Linux requires; effectively taking the "GNU" away from distros whose official name actually includes it. I wouldn't personally mind if consensus turned out to let Tux in, as long as I am allowed to apply the "popular misconception overrides facts" policy consistently across infoboxes. If Ahunt's argument is sound then it should generalize to all articles. I'm receiving mixed signals and a very unpleasant, politicized experience as a new editor devoting my time trying to improve Wikipedia in good faith. --Sisgeo (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing new about the problem of paid editing on Wikipedia, but I don't see anything there about paying anyone to remove GNU stuff from Wikipedia. If anything, in recent years, the issue on Wikipedia has been the opposite, of FSF supporters writing the word "GNU" all over articles, which is what led to MOS:LINUX. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Your recollection is exactly the opposite of what happened as far as I can tell. There was no forbidden terminology before MOS:LINUX; editors were free to word their work the way they saw fit. I mean, if neutrality and organic growth were the goals, why would you react to GNU peddlers by mandating the complete extermination their choice of terms, as MOS:LINUX does? By the way, you haven't answered whether you think your reasoning for displaying Tux here is valid for logos, coats of arms and flags elsewhere. It seems to me that we've caught you in a double standard. --Sisgeo (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Please take your (apparent) GNU/Linux crusade elsewhere. You can tell how far it is stretching when a harmless logo clearly associated with Linux is under attack on this page. This is just collateral damage in ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
DIYeditor and Ahunt, people like you are the reason that people are less and less trusting of Wikipedia as a whole. What's the point of an encyclopedia regurgitating common knowledge? That just furthers misconceptions and makes the wiki as a whole completely unreliable. Not to mention redundant. I, and everyone else on the web, don't come to wikipedia to research common knowledge. That would defeat the point, as common knowledge is exactly that, common. I want to actually learn about the subject at hand, and as it is the Linux article is a dumpster fire that spreads a bunch of misinformation and misconception. For example, if I read the article at face value, with no knowledge about the subject, I might think the Linux OS is the most dominant OS on the market. That's blatantly false. It's the Linux kernel that is so widespread, not the OS, which is its own completely separate thing. So thanks. Instead of just looking something up on Wikipedia to get a general knowledge of the subject, I've had to look up Linux ELSEWHERE anyways because Wikipedia is regurgitating common knowledge that is useless.74.123.104.1 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

New section "Code of Conduct Controversy"

This new section was just added and deals with a new code of conduct for Linux kernel developers, plus the associated politics in the Linux kernel dev community surrounding that. I think it is written and referenced fine, just that it doesn't belong here, but in Linux kernel instead, since it is specific to that subject. There is already some information on it there, although it could be expanded. We don't report kernel developer politics here, as this is a high-level article on the Linux biosphere as a whole and doesn't get into that level of specific minutia. I removed it with an edit summary to that effect and the OP reverted it saying, "...Without the Kernel there can be no operating system. Hence though specific to the kernel development mainline, the controversy affects all Linux users and thus belongs herein." Since anything that affects the kernel affects the larger Linux world (distros, etc) then this is an argument to merge that article back into this one. I don't think that is a good reason to include this new section in this article. I propose moving the section to Linux kernel, where I believe it belongs. - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay it seems three other editors have now evaluated it and the section has been removed, so I think that constitutes an editing consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that it was "written and referenced fine", given it mentioned nothing of a controversy and could easily be misinterpreted to imply Linus took a break from the project because of the introduction of the CoC. It also included a grammar error ("This coincide with the adoption..."). It seems to make sense to leave what currently exists in the Linux kernel article—it's written quite a bit better. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I tried to rewrite to not make that distinction, but that's being interpreted as an edit war, there were intermediate edits so thought that was ok, but apparently not. I agree that it might also belong to the kernel development page, but I think it merits a reference in the main page, possibly with a
Main article: Linux Kernel § Section
. The reason being that a kernel is responsible for allocating any resource to any program running in the OS, so a mass withdrawal of code from the kernel not only cripples the kernel but also whatever runs on top of it. Also the withdrawal of the GPLv2 licensed code would mean that effective on the judgement, the kernel would need to be patched to remove those portions, or the linux foundation would need to pay to license the withdrawn bits to not be in breach of Copyright. Since linux is distributed as free software and underlies much of the internet, thi might result in a massive disruption affecting not just kernel developers.Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Or maybe it belong here Criticism of Linux, and should have "main link" in each?Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
To clarify I've never been on a project that was court ordered to remove components, but I know enough about software development to know that it's not easy to instantly remove a component from the master, without the potential for instability. And if things weren't well modularized, it could take a while. And open source isn't known for being well modularized. So I don't know what the aftermath would be like if there was a legal issue, I and some of the developers in the citations are fairly certain that removing code "en bloc" would cripple and disrupt operation, until the removed bits could be implemented.Ethanpet113 (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
The threat to insist their code be removed seems to have largely died down since the CoC was implemented, or at least I haven't seen any additional serious discussion of it (and I suspect it would be newsworthy if there was; your reasons above are correct). That is why I think it is WP:UNDUE to include such a lengthy section in this page—some devs threatening to rescind their code but not doing so (as of yet) is nowhere near as relevant as the other subsections in the "History" section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I've read the newly removed sections and agree with its removal. It is all about kernel developer politics, so belongs at Linux kernel and not here. This article is a high-level overview of the whole Linux ecosphere. It does not report "trenches level" dev disputes on the kernel development. - Ahunt (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess for the main article on an important project we should wait to see if the scenario progresses any further, it's too early to tell right now. If there is an event somewhere down the line I also agree it will likely be newsworthy and happen "en bloc"(a fancy latin way of saying all at once), so it may not happen for a while and then suddenly happen. But for now we can't confirm if it's a credible threat.Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Should there be a criticism section?

The todo list for this page says

improve the criticism section. Criticism of Linux has mysteriously disappeared over time. (Compare the current article to the "article milestones" listed on this page. Also see the revision history of Criticism of Linux.)"

There doesn't actually to be a criticism section, so it can't really be improved- although there is some criticism in the body of the page. The criticism section is usually prominent on other pages often appearing before the further reading section. Here it seems to have been forked into its own page, and a link included in the see also section. Should there be a summary section for criticism with

Main article: Criticism of Linux

linked, or is the current layout acceptable?

Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Guidance is at WP:CRIT, which does say "In 2006, User:Jimbo Wales weighed in on the question: "In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."ref" - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Purpose of trademark

The text currently reads

Torvalds has stated that he trademarked the name only to prevent someone else from using it.

IANAL, but it seems to me that that is generally the purpose of a trademark, to prevent someone else from using it; there's no use in pointing this out. Shouldn't this read "to prevent someone else from trademarking it"? Unfortunately it is unsourced, otherwise I could have simply checked the source. Digital Brains (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Linux Text-to-speech (TTS)

See here: https://lwn.net/Articles/655914/

I wander, does this "suckyness" also apply to Android? I admit, I just haven't checked.. and while TTS is only an "application" (or the reverse, speech-to-text), I assumed it was fairly good now in Android, but that would be proprietary Google Now (and Siri, Cortana for others). E.g. are these technologies good in Android, but only in a proprietary form, but what about those included in free software AOSP, that may or may not still be used. And if they are good (or not..), can they be used in "regular" Linux? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comp.arch (talk • contribs)

Android is a regular Linux, and TTS have nothing to do with the kernel. It is done by library. Android have different implementations, but according on fast checking from sources, they used SVOX pico as a default TTS engine. You can use pico even on windows, it is written mostly in C. Does this tread belongs here? Looks like it have nothing to do with actual article, but a nice demonstration of wrong naming, when people are mixing kernel and the OS. Stealps (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Linux and GNU/Linux

CLOSED
rehash of old arguments, WP:COMMONNAME prevails

The following discussion 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.

I still do not understand why you are using Linux as the name of the article devoted to the full operating system instead of GNU+Linux. Following the same pattern the macOS article should be called XNU. Source: OSX Internals. Image of macOS stack. GNU is the equivalent to Darwin libraries and syscalls while Linux is the equivalent to Mach (kernel) plus BSD kernel parts, that is, Linux is equivalent to XNU. It would be more logical to have this article talking about Linux and then an article for each operating system using Linux as its kernel. For instance, Android already exists. The Linux page would serve as pointers to the rest of pages. This article creates confusion and forgets an historical fact: the fork of the GNU C library. Only during three years calling Linux the whole operating system made sense.History of glibc and Linux libc (it is a blog post with references). Using the most common result in Google does not make sense. Additionally it is an ad populum fallacy. Filiprino (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, but we have been over this dozens of times in the past decade and by longstanding consensus operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux" on Wikipedia, as per WP:COMMONNAME and also MOS:LINUX. "GNU/Linux" is considered a minority POV term used by the FSF and its supporters; GNU+Linux is hardly used by anyone, so there is little in the way of WP:RS for that. To get the full background you should read all the archives of this talk page, to get the history of the problem as well as Talk:Linux/Name as this is where past consensuses have been formed. You will also want to read GNU/Linux naming controversy and its talk page as background as well. - Ahunt (talk)
I already know that argument, but I have clearly stated that the current consensus is biased and plainly wrong. I have brought up facts stating that the current definition of Linux is wrong, because it is not coherent with the class of kernels it belongs to. And of course, GNU/Linux is misrepresented in the English Wikipedia (please, do not generalize to Wikipedia). And don't make me start with ad hominem falacies, please. This article does not respect the definition of a Unix-like operating system. It extends the name of the kernel to the rest of the operating system, something which does not make sense, as I already stated (read bibliography and history). This article makes Wikipedia a low quality source of information. Additionally, talking about a controversy is unjustified and makes things more complicated by impregnating with negative connotations the FSF and other people stances with respect to the usage of the term GNU-Linux and Linux. I do not care about GNU{/,-,+,*,:}Linux (pick your symbol). I care about misrepresentation and misinformation. Where could I get this consensus changed? Scientific proof refutes this article name and most of its contents. Thanks. Filiprino (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
You get the consensus changed right here, but you are going to have to come up with some more convincing arguments than you have done so far. We work on the "common name" for a subject (not the the largest Google Search result or even the official or "correct name", but the common name in use in society in general), so saying that the common name is imprecise or wrong, or inconsistent with Mac or Unix is not going to prevail. You need to show that the common name is actually something else. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
but you are going to have to come up with some more convincing arguments than you have done so far
Like what? I mean, all relevant sources from the IEEE and ACM have the consensus of using GNU-Linux, not Linux, because Linux is a kernel, not an OS. So you should explain better what you mean, because WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA state things like being precise, concise and consistent. Moreover, recognizability is not fulfilled because people familiar with the subject know that Linux is a kernel not an OS and the article keeps talking about an OS. If you want to read on the kernel you have to visit Linux kernel, which is absurd because Linux is a kernel. Naturalness can not be determined with tools like Google Trends because you have to do a semantic analysis of the results obtained to decide whether searches for GNU-Linux are done using the term "Linux". At least 3 out of 5 goals WP:CRITERIA are not fulfilled, unless the article contents are changed to talk about Linux, not GNU-Linux. As you can see, I am not advocating changing the title to GNU is Not Unix plus Linux, something which blatantly goes against WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. Filiprino (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME simply requires that we use the name that is commonly used; not the technically-correct name or the politically-correct name or the name advocated by any group or person, but the name in common everyday usage. If you go through all the archives as I linked above, you will see we have been around that one many times. In common use the name that describes all Linux-kernel-base operating systems is "Linux", which is why the article is located at the name. Unless you have any new evidence that the name in common use has changed then I think we are done here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Notice that I have not mentioned any technically-correct name nor politically-correct name. I have mentioned the naming conventions. You are bypassing all the goals explicited in WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. If I go back to the archives I will see you stating always the same imposing your own criteria. You are the only user that comes back again and again to impose his criteria without attending further reasons. Linux is used for the kernel and GNU-Linux is used for the operating system. You can not say otherwise because you do not have any source for stating that. Your personal opinion means nothing, but bypassing Wikipedia policies goes against Wikipedia policies.
This is false: The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system family, as well as specific distributions, to emphasize that most Linux distributions are not just the Linux kernel. Not only the FSF but many others call the OS correctly.
This is false: The defining component of a Linux distribution is the Linux kernel. A Linux distribution does not exist as a software package. What does exist are GNU-Linux distributions, or Android distributions or µlibc-Linux distributions.
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? Linux was originally developed for personal computers based on the Intel x86 architecture,
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? Because of the dominance of the Linux kernel-based Android OS on smartphones, Linux has the largest installed base of all general-purpose operating systems.
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? Linux is also the leading operating system on servers and other big iron systems such as mainframe computers, and the only OS used on TOP500 supercomputers (since November 2017, having before gradually eliminated all competitors)
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? It is used by around 2.3% of desktop computers.[21][22] The Chromebook, which runs the Linux kernel-based Chrome OS
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? Linux also runs on embedded systems—devices whose operating system is typically built into the firmware and is highly tailored to the system.
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? The development of Linux is one of the most prominent examples of free and open-source software collaboration. Filiprino (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? In 1991, while attending the University of Helsinki, Torvalds became curious about operating systems.[39] Frustrated by the licensing of MINIX, which at the time limited it to educational use only,[38] he began to work on his own operating system kernel, which eventually became the Linux kernel.
And I could continue with the whole article. This article mixes a lot of different operating systems in a single bag. The fact is that the different operating systems are incompatible between them, yet this article treats them as all being equal. For instance, supercomputers run GNU-Linux and phones run Android. Embedded systems run propietario OSes or FOSS ones like OpenWRT which is not GNU-Linux nor Android. This article talks about Linux, Android and GNU-Linux without any distinction, when there is a difference. Each OS must have his own page and this article should be devoted to Linux, not Linux, Android, GNU-Linux, OpenWRT and others. Filiprino (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay you have put down your position here. This talk page has lots of editors watching it, so let's see if anyone else agrees with you. - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
As a compromise might I recommend a comment in the lead such as "Linux is the common name given to GNU/Linux although <description of why there is technically a distinction>". Or if not that a section say "Use of the name Linux"Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I would like to contribute my stance. I've waited a long time to see if things will change, but I can't stand this anymore. Wikipedia's current concensus is to refer to the family of operating systems that use Linux as "Linux", not "GNU/Linux", therefore a comment like "Linux is the common name given to GNU/Linux" is inappropriate. If that is Wikipedia's concensus, I find it acceptable to refer to the OS family as simply "Linux". But what I don't accept is that the same should apply to the title of the article. What I'm saying here is that the name of the article should be, most of all, correct. Leaving aside the naming controversy, the article about the family of OSes should be titled "Linux (operating systems)" (pay attention to the plural form of the word "systems"), and the article about Linux itself (which, without stretching the meaning of the word to refer to anything else other than the technically correct meaning, refers to the Unix-like kernel) should be titled "Linux" or "Linux (kernel)". The articles should have a note in the lead section saying that technically the term refers to the kernel, but as of current concensus of Wikipedia editors, it is used to refer to the OS family (and also mentioning the fact that the correct name for the Linux kernel is "Linux" and not "Linux kernel", just as Linus Torvalds named it). Both of the articles should continue to use the terms "Linux" and "Linux kernel" to refer to the OS family and to the kernel, respectively, through the rest of the articles. In a nutshell: This has nothing to do with the content of the articles, but with their titles. There are various reasons why an article shouldn't be titled correctly but actually use a more popular name, but in this case, especially considering the naming controversy, it is much, much more important to title articles correctly. The issues User:Filiprino described on May 8, 2018, 14:56 UTC are another thing - leaving aside the naming controversy, Wikipedia articles must be unambiguous. --85.64.33.163 (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Filiprino, there are many operation systems that using Linux, calling only some of them the same name as kernel not just unfair or historically wrong, but misleading and tricky in any technical discussion around Linux topic. There are historical reasons why some people started to call all different distributions with the kernel name and can ignore absolute minority of non-GNU/Linux operation systems. I think it doesn't make sense to discuss it now. Now the most widely used OS with Linux kernel is Android. Cisco routers powered by NXOS is running on Linux (the kernel), project Nerves honestly states that it is allowing to ship your app in cross compiles Linux, while it's not GNU/Linux they are shipping. Calling Ubuntu, but not Andoid as Linux is just misleading, confusing for people, who are trying to research the topic. Linux is a kernel and a few tools in userspace, but not the operation system. I think the best solution in current situation is a generic page similar to Field for example. Linux page should ask what did you actually mean - Linux kernel, GNU/Linux operation system, or probably Linux Foundation. Stealps (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
No due to WP:COMMONNAME. GNU/Linux is not the common name for anything, so you can't shoehorn it in the back door with that argument, to mix a metaphor. - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Then why do we see information about Debian, Android, Chrome OS et.c? Linux is not a common name for those. There should be at least differentiation between the Linux project, and Linux-based operation systems to begin with. Stealps (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
That is already clearly explained right in the lede section of this article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Filiprino, plenty of arguments have been made that seem to swap the relative importance of GNU and Linux. It's clearly incorrect to refer to the GNU operating system, and indeed distributions of the GNU operating system packaged with the Linux kernel as simply 'Linux'. I'll happily concede however, that GNU isn't widely known vernacular for the set of operating system distributions. The problem is that Linux is often, but not always, the lowest common denominator (i.e. all use Linux, not all use GNU). The reason why I'd tend to agree with at least changing the name of the article to GNU/Linux and changing references to Android and other non-GNU operating systems to make it clear that they're often lumped together but are not the same, is that for what most people consider to be 'Linux' (Ubuntu, Debian, Gentoo, Fedora, RedHat etc) all are GNU, but not all are necessarily Linux. It's possible to use a different kernel and have functionally the same OS, but you cannot use any of these distributions without GNU on account of the base operating system and associated packages are GNU. It appears as though the issues arise when GNU and non-GNU operating systems are placed in the same article, but the article's main focus is on the distributions of the GNU operating system and not on the kernel. At present, whilst the article may 'work', it's sloppy to have actually incorrect information in an encyclopaedia. Tomtiger11 (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
As you note, "I'll happily concede however, that GNU isn't widely known vernacular for the set of operating system distributions" and that runs right into our Wikipedia policy on article naming at WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
It's also at odds with WP:PRECISION. Linux is the name of the kernel, GNU is the operating system. The article does such a clumsy job of trying to deal with the fact that it's title is that of a kernel, that is often used to refer to GNU/Linux packaged together, but then also tries to cover operating systems other than GNU too - it is entitled Linux after all. At the moment, this page has information on it that confuses the idea of Linux being the kernel. In the design section, there's references to 'Linux kernel' but also GNU userland. There's an image that shows that there's such a thing as GNU/Hurd, but then labels GNU packaged with Linux as simply Linux. How can you talk about GNU/Hurd, the fact that from the userspace most users wouldn't see any difference between GNU running on Linux and GNU running on Hurd, without making it clear that when people talk about 'Linux' as an operating system, they're talking about GNU running on the Linux kernel. Almost the entire 'uses' section talks about Linux as a kernel, not 'Linux' as a GNU/Linux package (or a family of operating systems, as the article says). The amount of contortion required to ensure the article has enough for people simply searching 'Linux' (which could be anything from people using GNU/Linux, people hearing about Linux's market share bay way of being used in embedded devices, or wanting specific information about the kernel) without going into too much technical information about the kernel is astounding. It just about makes sense if you know the topic, but for someone looking for information on the term 'linux' and how it describes both a kernel and 'a family of operating systems' (GNU/Linux), it's confusing at best. Tomtiger11 (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually if you read it WP:PRECISION supports the current title: "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." The claim "Linux is the name of the kernel, GNU is the operating system." is WP:POV from Stallman and the FSF and is not widely supported outside that POV. - Ahunt (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to debate in good faith, but I'm afraid your point doesn't stand to scrutiny. WP:PRECISION clearly says "...unambiguously define the topical scope of the article..." and I provided a good number of examples where the title of the topic and the scope of the article do not match. It's all very well quoting WP:COMMONNAME but covering topics applicable solely to the kernel in an article self-defined as talking about "a family of open source Unix-like operating systems" makes the title ambiguous - items referring to the kernel belong in Linux Kernel. Calling it GNU/Linux is indeed the position of the GNU Project and the FSF, but I do not know how you can claim that Linux being the kernel, and GNU being the operating system is a minority POV - it's the plain truth. The vast majority of the 'base packages' - packages that are common between most/all GNU/Linux distributions are managed/maintained by the GNU Project (Bash, coreutils), and it's even the (well referenced) term used on GNU. I don't think anybody is advocating for this to be merged with GNU, it's very clear that the work put into the Linux kernel is very important but just as GNU doesn't form an operating system on its own, neither does Linux. Tomtiger11 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Tomtiger11, Wikipedia is like the Hitch-Hiker's Guide. Where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong.
Here, we have a small number of geeks saying that calling the OS Linux is lazy and/or wrong. They are technically correct - the best kind of correct! - but it's irrelevant because the world has decided that Linux is the name of the OS as well.
We can't fix errors the real world has made, unfortunately. Guy (help!) 09:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
JzG, you make a good point, and I appreciate the way you put it. If my gripe was purely one of principle, I couldn't argue. The problem I, and I assume lots of other people who share my view, have is that for as long as this article is named 'Linux', is primarily about "a family of open source Unix-like operating systems", and yet has considerable content that only applies to the kernel, the article title will be somewhat ambiguous. There's a number of ways to solve that issue, namely leaving as is in the knowledge that it's a bit ambiguous. There's also removing the content that only applies to the kernel and not to either GNU/Linux distributions or non-GNU OSs like Android, or moving it to the Linux Kernel page. There's also (my preferred option) changing the article title to GNU/Linux (or something similar to note that the article is specifically discussing distributions of GNU/Linux - what I'd assume the lay man would be meaning when they say 'Linux'), noting in the article that there are also operating systems that aren't based on GNU and placing such content, along with the content applicable only to the kernel, to Linux Kernel. That way when someone searches 'Linux' they get sent to this page with an altered title, they see information relevant to the article scope, and if they were actually looking for information about the kernel there'll be the disambiguation links taking them to the relevant page.
I understand if my preferred option and views aren't universally shared but I think the article needs to be more on-topic. If any action is to be taken, changing the topic requires the least work and has the additional benefit of being 'more correct' as well as less ambiguous. It means that apart from moving a few blocks of text around, no significant editing is required. The other option of trying to rewrite the article so that it covers the 'family of operating systems' that are commonly called Linux, without also making it an article on the kernel, requires more work. The main preamble and history section could be rewritten to more accurately portray how the operating systems came about, with brief discussion of how GNU and Linux come together to form a whole functioning operating system, and then development/uses/et cetera - and moving anything purely about the kernel to Linux Kernel. Whilst not my preferred option, that could also work Tomtiger11 (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I am adding my "vote" (even though it is only informal here) to make this a 6-1 discussion in favor of changing the nomenclature to the appropriate "GNU/Linux". MOS:LINUX's Talk:Linux/Name consensus discussion and vote of this debate dates to a 2008 vote where the turnout was unfortunately the complete opposite of all the discussions on the page before the vote: everywhere I look before the vote people were supporting GNU/Linux and not Linux!!! The vote however was 8-0 in favor of just calling it Linux. I would like to add my vote in this discussion: GNU/Linux is the name of the (class of) operating system(s) which use the Linux kernel. Altanner1991 (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Altanner1991, that's because Wikipedia uses the words the real world uses, not the words the real world would use if the real world weren't so persistently Wrong about stuff. Guy (help!) 09:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
and, as has been done dozens of times before this quickly gets into WP:DEADHORSE territory, so time to wrap it up until the next time. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Overwhelming majority of WP:RS refer to Linux kernel with GNU as Linux. Activism to credit rms or FSF is not a valid argument here. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a few points that seem obvious and natural to me, without any need to point to [WP:thisorthat]. As seen above, they can be contradictory, and can be abused to defend a weak position.

(1) A somewhat common term used to refer to something should be the title, even if that use is technically wrong, provided it is unambiguous.

(2) If various people each encounter that term referring to different somethings, whether in new or old documents, each of those people can and should expect Wikipedia to have an article or articles which will faithfully explain all such meanings of the term within the contexts of each of those encounters, including the current and historical meanings. Ideally, either the definitions are all covered in one article, or the article should choose one meaning to define and link to the disambiguation page for the others. This one evolved into doing much of both, which is OK, but the first paragraph says it is intended to define only one usage of the term, and that doesn't match the title. I agree that this Article is broken in this regard, and that the title could easily solve all these problems as suggested above with "Linux (operating systems)". Given the strong resistance to this extremely simple suggestion (which I don't understand, in spite the rationalizations above), I also agree with many of the correct, but much more laborious solutions suggested above.

(3) Regardless of the title, if the common usage of the term is incorrect, like "Kleenex", the article defining such term should begin by noting the technical incorrectness, and address it in the body, and it should provide a technically correct, alternative term. The title can be "Kleenex"; we can't make people stop calling it a "Kleenex"; however, it is the ethical duty of the author to provide and even promote the more correct term such as "facial tissue". I don't understand the resistance to this. Just because a term is popularly used ambiguously and incorrectly doesn't mean we also must do so. Why do some in the Wikipedia community despise using the term GNU/Linux? It's the truth. It's correct. It's unambiguous. It's the accepted term of the relevant scientific communities. It reflects historical fact. What makes it such a dirty word?

(4) If the author(s) of an article wish to use the popular term throughout the article in place of a correct term simply due to familiarity, that's fine, as long as the article expressly states such continued use, and the term is not ambiguously used to mean anything else in the article. In this article, we could add "for the sake of simplicity, the term 'Linux kernel' is used to refer to the kernel originally developed by Linus Torvalds for the GNU OS, and the term "Linux" refers to GNU/Linux operating systems"; of course, the article would have to be religious about clarifying any other use of the term "Linux" in the article, and should not use that term when referring to systems that use a different kernel with the same GNU OS, or vice versa, etc. Otherwise, the article's definition of the term gets muddled and even becomes false. It's valid to argue that "Linux" should be used for the title and throughout the article instead of GNU/Linux because it is the commonly accepted and/or popular term for a family of OSes; just remember that ChromeOS, MAC OS, Android, Google Nest and smartwatches are NEITHER commonly accepted as nor popularly referred to as "Linux" operating systems. Oh, wait, but that is in contradiction with three of the first five paragraphs, which indicate "Linux" is not a family of operating systems, but any electronic device with Linux (the kernel) in it. Hmmm... So even within the article, the refusal to accept a more accurate term makes it impossible for the article to define "Linux".

(5) This article is "muddled" at best, and the first paragraph is false. It's impossible for one thing to be based on another which didn't exist. Linux the OS is NOT "based" on the Linux kernel. Rather, the kernel was based on the OS, initiated by Linus and completed by multiple authors to fit the "Linux" GNU OS, in place of GNU's kernel (and I think the extra comma erroneously indicates that the whole family of OSes was created by Linus Torvalds). The first sentence of this article exposes the author's bias against the facts (more activism?). Numerous articles and postings on the Web which I've seen paraphrase this article's heading, resulting in false statements that are then perpetuated throughout the Internet and the real world, claiming Linux was invented by Linus. Linus played a fractional but momentously pivotal role in the first complete "Linux" operating system and he deserves his props; the rest was GNU and FSF, made up of dozens or hundreds of other equally valuable people who produced the other 99.9% of "Linux", and it's unethical and contradictory to historical facts to obscure and bury those other contributions. The truth should be celebrated.

(6) The bias gets more offensive in the 2nd sentence with an incendiary, unsubstantiated opinion: it claims that the FSF is "causing" controversy, However, the citations provided do not indicate controversy; rather they provide some clarification and history of the term Linux. Who is this author that they should decide which is the cause and which is the effect? I would say The news media and journalists caused the "controversy". Maybe the author wasn't around in the industry when it happened. Any "controversy" existed before the FSF articles referenced by the author. The media misquoted, abbreviated and misapplied the term back in the 1990s, and that's what the public heard of course, and so it continues to be used that way today. For a more accurate, less political article, refer to the disambiguation at the top of this article.

(7) I'm not a "GNU GUY" or an "FSF Actvist" as some of the impertinent posts above (and one or more of the authors of this article) would have readers believe, simply because I know what's correct and what's false and want Wikipedia articles to be truthful, accurate, and reliable -- more informative, not less. I don't care much if people say Ubuntu is Linux -- I do it, too. Call it Kleenex for all I care. As a software developer and system administrator, I believe the content of any article about technical subjects must be able to convey the facts correctly. The title and first few hundred words of this article, the most important, don't do that.

(8) All of these problems seem to come back to one issue: GNU/Linux is a dirty word to many Wikipedians, a political football, but we don't know what else to call it. Coder Steve (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:THETRUTH. - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Although GNU is a very common toolset for Linux, there are Linux distributions with other toolsets, so GNU/Linux is one specific combination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello world 6 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

GNU is an operating system which uses the Linux kernel

In 1983, Richard Stallman began development of a free software operating system. Operating systems are complex things, and he could not hope to make the entire thing by himself. This is why the GNU operating system uses software developed by others, such as the X Window System, and the kernel Linux. Unfortunately, when the people working on the kernel Linux integrated it with the GNU operating system, they thought they were making an operating system called Linux. They were not. Out of courtesy, many of us say "GNU/Linux" or "GNU + Linux" because we recognise the good work those who program the kernel Linux are doing. However, if we so chose we could easily simply call it GNU, because that is what it is. It's unfortunate that a lot of the sources out there want to disagree with reality, because this allows anyone working on this article to then write in a way which also disagrees with reality, even though the actual true history is documented and available. It's an unfortunate series of events all around, really. DesertPipeline (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Covered under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linux/Archive_51&oldid=1043399957"