Jump to content

Talk:Linux distribution/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Merger proposal for Lightweight Linux distribution

The Lightweight Linux distribution article pretty much doesn't describe a distribution type notable enough by itself to warrant a separate article and as such should be merged into Linux distribution. Prose from the Lightweight Linux distribution's lead section could be merged into the Linux distribution § Types and trends section, while the list of distributions from section Lightweight Linux distribution § Distributions described as lightweight could be merged into the Linux distribution § Examples section. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a good remark. I'd suggest that the table currently residing in Lightweight Linux distribution § Comparison of lightweight Linux distributions is moved into the Comparison of Linux distributions article as a separate section that may be titled "Lightweight distributions" and placed after Comparison of Linux distributions § Live media, for example. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I actually think the table can just be dropped. It doesn't add much of real value. - Ahunt (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not support — The article covers a specific genre of not just lightweight Linux distributions, but also low-fi computing, retrocomputing, and avoidance of planned obsolescence, wherein older computers can be retrofitted with a newer and more secure operating system and applications, so that these computers could still be run and serve a useful purpose. -Mardus (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
"Planned obsolescence"? You can still download older versions of Linux distributions and install them even on ancient 386 computers, so there's really no "plan" for making old hardware unusable. Short of that, latest versions of some general-purpose Linux distributions can be installed even on a 486 computer with 64 MB of RAM, which just confirms that there's no clear distinction between general-purpose and lightweight Linux distributions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I like retrocomputing, but I'm on the fence on this.. Do not know too much about Slackware, I guess this is without GUI? Lubuntu and others try to run on low-spec computers, while full Ubuntu doesn't. At one point, Linux ran on even less than 64 MB, but the kernel doesn't support the oldest CPU(s) any more. There is no real, line to be draw on low-spec..? This, seems a made-up category, but still is one (but at the time, Linux ran on powerful computers, that we now consider junk..). I will not get in the way of merging. comp.arch (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Only the support for i386 was removed from the Linux kernel in version 3.8, which was released in February 2013, while i486 and later CPUs remain fully supported. Speaking about GUIs, even the ancient versions of Slackware, such as Slackware 3.6 that was released in 1998, had XFree86 on their installation CDs; moreover, everything (including XFree86 with twm, fvwm or fvwm95) was running very smoothly on a Pentium MMX with 32 MB of EDO RAM, for example. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, and with Ahunt's suggestion of dropping the table. There's not enough there to warrant a standalone article. That a certain class of Linux distributions caters (more or less) to a specific type of user has no bearing on it needing a standalone article, that information can more than easily be covered in this article as appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would prefer summary style with a lead section summarising the article transcluded to a subsection, with the rest of the article available with a "main" link from the main page. This material can't be merged without deleting the list. -- Callinus (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Closed tag

Dsimic I've gone ahead and transcluded some of the lead section with a main link, and removed the tag from both pages. If you want material deleted on "lightweight linux distributions" you'll probably have to AfD it and call for merge votes.

With the tag on for over a year with no closure it doesn't help to keep it. -- Callinus (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Callinus, I'm not sure that I'm happy with your changes to the Linux distribution article, but let's hear opinions from more editors. However, the merger tags were placed in June 2015, which accounts for much less than a year. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Separation proposal: Debian and Ubuntu

While Ubuntu is technically based off of Debian, the two have drifted apart in so many ways that they arguably should not be in the same category. For example, with the release of "Snappy" packages on Ubuntu, it cannot be said that all software is intercompatible between the two distributions. Should these two be separated into different categories? Aaronfranke (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What category is that? The article is only in one category Category:Linux distributions. The article currently says "Ubuntu, a desktop and server distribution derived from Debian". What needs to be changed? - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Android is Unix-like

Contrary to what the article currently says ("Almost all Linux distributions are Unix-like; the most notable exception is Android, which does not include a command-line interface and programs made for typical Linux distributions"), Android is Unix-like: apart from a Unix-like kernel, it does include a command-line interface (but by default it starts in graphical mode and doesn't have a terminal emulator preinstalled -- though you can find plenty in the Play Store: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 -- some of them bundle other tools, some don't), the C library (Bionic) and typical Unix command-line utils (Toybox). Having no X.Org Server is not a reason to be considered not-Unix-like -- after all, server versions of popular distros don't have any graphics at all. You can run native stuff directly like you would in any other Linux distro (I'm running CPython right now, for example). It's true that Android includes an "unusual" graphics stack and an app framework unlike GTK+/ Qt (although Qt runs fine on Android), but this in no way makes it less Unix-like.

Based on the above, I'm removing the clause about Android. --Bugaevc (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I put that text in, it's not at all about the GUI, Unix predates that. You are wrong, Android includes a shell, but not a command-line interface (adb an exception? Not really as not the primary user interface, similar to as in original Unix). Terminals where the norm, for Unix, and the Unix philosophy is about (e.g.): 1. "Write programs to work together." [through pipes], 2. "Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface." (emphasis mine) Android is very un-Unix-like in that sense, I think we can compromize some on the wording? comp.arch (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, Android is not designed to be used from the command line. Neither are modern desktop (graphical) Linux distros. If those are considered Unix-like, there's no reason not to consider Android Unix-like. Furthermore, Unix also had the X server and its graphical clients. Surely they didn't do text streams and pipes.
adb is just a tool to connect to the device, things people call "adb shell commands" are actually Android shell commands (no need to use adb to access them). They follow the Unix philosophy and generally perform actions that aren't available via GUI.--Bugaevc (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
"Unix also had the X server" no, not for over a decade (also even applies to the 1983 predecessor W Window System). Unix is from 1971 or earlier. Pipes "were implemented in 1973 when ("in one feverish night", wrote McIlroy) Ken Thompson added the pipe() system call and pipes to the shell and several utilities in Version 3 Unix. "The next day", McIlroy continued, "saw an unforgettable orgy of one-liners as everybody joined in the excitement of plumbing." McIlroy also credits Thompson with the | notation, which greatly simplified the description of pipe syntax in Version 4.[5][4]" considered essential to ancient Unix (of those formative years) and all later version. CLI was before them.
Modern Unix (reads Linux [distro], you can't define Unix-like from something that isn't even strictly Unix) is less and less (relatively, by API count and added stuff, but still keeps the core) Unix-like, but pipes (and CLI) retained, just often not used by many users (but very frequently by some, like me, and always used behind the scenes). Android made a clean break. ["The Android Debug Bridge (adb) provides a Unix shell that you can use to run a variety of commands on an emulator or connected device." Adb is an edge-case, note the d is for debug, note also "connected device", e.g you can't run on your device otherwise. As you say "perform actions that aren't available via GUI", so competing the system with a CLI, then you can say the system is Unix-like; ironicaly that combo could be Android (on Linux kernel) and CLI/terminal on Windows, none of which is Unix, but ok, Unix-like when you add non-Android into the mix.] comp.arch (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

What are the requirements for explicit mention of a distro on this page?

I note that my recent inclusion of TurnKey GNU/Linux has been rejected (as per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux_distribution&oldid=prev&diff=724309840) and would like to understand what makes a distro significant enough for explicit inclusion?

I realise that this page is not intended to be exhaustive, but I was under the impression that the section that I updated was listing notable Linux distros that run live. Whilst TurnKey is not a particularly major distro (in context of SUSE, Ubuntu, Linux Mint, MEPIS and Fedora), IMO by virtue of it's somewhat unique nature (i.e. a headless server distro with the ability to run Live) makes it notable.

Furthermore I believe my perspective is backed by some of the distros explicitly mentioned in the sentence that follows the one I updated. Included are Devil-Linux, SuperGamer and dyne:bolic. IMO none of these distros are any more notable than TurnKey, perhaps even less so as they are not unique in the sense that TurnKey is.

I propose that my edit be reinstated, perhaps with some mention of it's "uniqueness" (server distro that runs live) as way of justification of it's inclusion. Thoughts?

JedMeister (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Seem appropriate, not all software is a "Linux [distro]", yes, Linux is in the name, and it's for GNU/Linux, but TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library "is a free open source project which has developed a range of Debian based pre-packaged server software". Similarity LAMP, refers to software running on Linux (LAMP is also often included in distros), even with L meaning Linux. My understanding is that a distro, is a distribution of an operating system (and yes, that includes libraries, and with no clear boundaries, which should be included), and a kernel is essential in an OS. a) It seems you can bundle with an OS (as a VM) but you need not. b) may not be very notable. comp.arch (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Invite to participate in a discussion.

There is a underway discussion, I would be grateful if you participate in it:

Editor-1 (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Change article name from misspelled Linux distribution to GNU/Linux distribution.

According to GPU Project[1] "Many users do not understand the difference between the kernel, which is Linux, and the whole system, which they also call “Linux”. The ambiguous use of the name doesn't help people understand."

Thus they claim that "All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux."

In order to reduce the confession, it would help to change the article name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eido95 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but by longstanding consensus operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux distributions" on Wikipedia, as per WP:COMMONNAME and also MOS:LINUX. "GNU/Linux" is considered a minority POV term only used by the FSF and its supporters. On Wikipedia the term is only used to describe distros when the distro itself is called "GNU/Linux", such as "Debian GNU/Linux", and then only when referring to the distro itself. If you want to change this consensus then you should read Talk:Linux including all the archives of that 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. When you have the history of the consensus read then you can present your case at Talk:Linux to try to convince the other editors that all references "Linux" other than to the kernel itself in Wikipedia should be changed to "GNU/Linux". Be advised that this has been brought up dozens of times there, including recently and has always been soundly and conclusively opposed. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Posibility of a subsection for non-GNU Linux distributions

If the article remains under the name "Linux distributions" it should also deal with non-GNU Linux-based distributions. Currently they are four: Android, Cyanogenmod, its fork LineageOS and Android-x86

--Juansempere (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Some things would need to change, though. As it currently stands,"GNU/Linux distribution" redirects to this article, so if your proposal were to happen, perhaps this redirect would need to go. Or something else. EDIT: Also, see the discussion above between Eido95 and Ahunt. Penskins (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
If the article deals with both GNU and non-GNU based distributions then the current title "Linux distribution" is still applicable in both cases. "GNU/Linux distribution" should still redirect here, because "GNU/Linux distribution" is a euphemism for "Linux distribution" and is included here. Where else could it be redirected to? - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess one solution to that specific conundrum would be to have two distinct articles, but you are right, as it stands, that would be rather silly. Penskins (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I think is enough to change 5.4 to "Android and Android-like distributions" and to put there links to cyanogenmod and similars. If nobody disagrees I will do it tomorrow.--Juansempere (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Linux and the GNU System, 2016/11/18 06:31:38

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linux distribution. 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) 21:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Malware link on history of Linux chart, Dream work under Ubuntu has a link that leads to a malware site. Please Remove — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.128.196.148 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Which link is that and what is the issue? - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing Trisquel?

I think reporting Trisquel under "widely used" is misleading, probably added by some Trisquel supporter. It think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.117.38 (talk)

You are probably right. WP:FANCRUFT I will remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Is Ubuntu Linux most popular?

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.

"Ubuntu is most popular." - Ahunt wrote again in the article. Then, you have to present here facts of that. I agree that ubuntu is a popular Linux distribution, but I am against "most popular". It is still advertising enought, and Wikipedia is not meant for advertisment. Therefore in the meantime, the article remains unchanged. Green (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. First off I didn't add this, I merely reverted your removal of it. Second, you are misquoting what it said. What you removed was "Ubuntu, one of the most popular desktop Linux distributions", not, as you claimed "Ubuntu is most popular." So you seem to have already answered your own complaint, as that is not what it said in the first place. As I already noted in my revert the original statement, "Ubuntu, one of the most popular desktop Linux distributions" is factually correct, as you agree above. We go with what the refs say: one says With millions of users around the world, Ubuntu is the third most popular operating system in the world. This GNU / Linux distribution has already been the most popular in the world and has gained in recent years some (small) improvements. and another says: Ubuntu is probably the most well-known Linux distribution. The original statement is factually correct and should be reinstated.
On procedures here on Wikipedia, as per WP:BRD, once you have changed something and it has been reverted you should not go and revert it again, but instead bring it to then talk page for consensus. Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
We do not believe commercial websites which tell so as you picked up. Maybe we all agree with comments or statics released from non-commercial or official governmental websites instead. It is much suitable to write down in Ubuntu article if you still would like to appeal so. -- Green (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Who is this "we" you refer to? Otherwise you need to re-phrase what you have written here as it is not understandable. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
If the reliable sources is truly a third-party source with no vested interest in the article's subject and has editorial oversight if a journalistic source, then it is suitable as a reliable sources, especially for the purpose of verifying relatively non-contentious information that is verified by these sources. If there is an issue with these sources that can be shown through the lens of WP:RS, then by all means that should be addressed. However, I looked through the sources and couldn't find anything problematic with them. - Aoidh (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Your source is only from comments by a commercial website. It it really reliable fact? Even though you insist Ubuntu is the most popular, we do NOT admit, because the article Linux_distribution says " There are no official figures on popularity, adoption, downloads or installed base of Linux distributions." Your are going to advertise Ubuntu here? It is OK to take a same measure to adopt as a fact from DestroWatch.com. which denies your fact at present. How do you respond the survey done by the DestroWatch so far? -- Green (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
You are again misquoting the caption. It actually says "Ubuntu, one of the most popular desktop Linux distributions" - which seems to be something we all agree on. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I just quoted: "There are no official figures on popularity, adoption, downloads or installed base of Linux distributions." from Wikipedia in the main article Linux_distribution. - Green (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I already quoted two WP:RS that supported the original caption "Ubuntu, one of the most popular desktop Linux distributions". There are many dozens more refs that can easily found, so the original caption is well supported. - Ahunt (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I wonder how they knew a fact that Ubuntu is one of most popular distributions. They examined their friends, don't they? it seems what they told were political comments, rather than scientific statistic. Did they examined all of free Linux users across the world? I did not submit any data to assist them. Green (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Fortunately due to our Wikipedia policy of WP:RS we don't have to address questions like that. - Ahunt (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Ahunt is correct, and if you have concerns that the sources are not independent sources I would advise taking those concerns to WP:RSN and explaining why other than questions. As a note though, in most situations, especially by default, you do submit what OS you're using to almost every website you visit, along with what browser, and all kinds of other information. - Aoidh (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
According to DistroWatch.com, rating in year 2019 by Linux distributions as follows: the first is MX Linux, the second is Manjaro, the third is Mint. Ubuntu came just only forth in row. Green (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Those are page hit rankings, which can be easily manipulated, because all those rankings mean is that the distro's page on DistroWatch has been accessed. Each time a computer or device sends a request to view that page, the counter goes up by one. This is literally the only things those statistics show. While it may be indicative of and suggest popularity, that's not what it shows. A few things, (1) you're still arguing against something that the article doesn't say, it does not say "Ubuntu is the most popular." (2) Why is DistroWatch a reliable source for you when the others aren't? (3) Assuming DistroWatch is the indicator of popularity you're saying it is, doesn't this do nothing short of verify the information in the article? If you look at those rankings by year, Ubuntu has consistently been in the top 5 since 2005, something no other distro has done, not even mainstays like Manjaro, Fedora, or Debian. - Aoidh (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
"With millions of users around the world, Ubuntu is the third most popular operating system in the world. This GNU / Linux distribution has already been the most popular in the world and has gained in recent years some (small) improvements." and another says: "Ubuntu is probably the most well-known Linux distribution." --These are only statements without definite facts. Data of DistroWatch is statistic rather than statements, which means statistic is generally more reliable than individual statements. That is why i refered to DistroWatch.
"By the way, have you noticed grammatical differences -- popular; more popular; most popular? There is no reliable statistic to support your opinion that Ubuntu is most popular. Ubuntu is not NO1, but I said it is a popular distro. It is a tricky usage to mention a word like "most" or "one of most". --Green (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here or what you're proposing the article say. If you're insistent on using the DistroWatch data, it supports the content in the article. Full stop. I wouldn't rely on it but even your argument that it carries more weight than reliable sources only undermines what I think you're trying to say. On DistroWatch, Ubuntu is the only distro that has been in the top 5 every year for the last 15 years. The only one. By your own metric, this supports the content in the article that Ubuntu is one of the most popular distros. There is no issue with the word "most", per WP:IDIOM. What change are you suggesting, exactly, and with what sources are you suggesting support a change? - Aoidh (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I only presented another data by DistroWatch for your reference, but I am not proposing to adopt that data instead. The main article says "There are no official figures on popularity of Linux distributions". My comment totally follows it. You had better to care about a weasel word which is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific. Examples include the phrases "some people say", "most people think”. I doubt if you have read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for a proper usage in Wikipedia. --Green (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it is time to wrap this up here, we are well into WP:DEADHORSE territory. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The fundamental problem here is that there in no reliable facts so far. Nevertheless a certain Wiki-writer strongly insisted Ubuntu is "one of the most" popular one. --Green (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
No, that is not correct. We have many WP:RS that support that caption an a consensus to retain it. Unless you have proof that all these reliable sources are wrong, then we are done here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Then, you must read closely the contents of this section says: Linux_distribution#Statistics. That section tell you "There are no official figures on popularity of Linux distributions", because it seems that you did not read it at all. --Green (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I add a comment. Quite recently Mr. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols published a Linux news titled "Linux Mint dumps Ubuntu Snap" at www.zdnet.com[1]. In this article he said "Linux Mint is one of the most popular Linux distributions". If so, should we add a screenshot of it on the article here? -No, absolutely not. This is not a place to appeal a particular Linux distribution. This page is only a list of Linux distros. That is why I have been strongly insisting that you had better not advertise Ubuntu here with a weasel word. --Green (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2020 (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.

About deleting "Chromium OS is the development version of Chrome"

Hello, all.
Most recently, a description on Chromium OS was cut.: "It is the development version of Chrome OS, a Linux distribution made by Google." was deleted. I think it is a proper explanation. Therefore this part should not be deleted. I do not understand the reason. If you are going to delete this part, you had better first to explain a reason to readers. --Green (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

After Chromium OS was added to the section "Widely used distributions" by User: 154.64.217.210, I removed it with the edit summary that said "not even close to a "Widely used distribution". That pretty much explains the removal. While the IP's assertion that Chromium OS is the dev version of Chrome OS is correct it doesn't belong under "Widely used distributions", because Chromium OS is not a "Widely used distribution". - Ahunt (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I understood your real intention now. It seemed to me you denied "Chromium OS is the dev version of Chrome OS" at first. Green (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I thought my edit summary was pretty clear. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

GNU/Linux versus non-GNU/Linux

Maybe make a proper separation between GNU based distributions and non-GNU ones? It has become very confusing with the proliferation of more non-GNU based distributions and the typical features they lack even though they are based around the Linux kernel. Similarly the Windows support for Linux compatible userlands that primarily targets running GNU based environments because people really care about running GNU, not so much which kernel is hosting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:985:2C6E:1:79B0:ACC5:ECCB:6346 (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

"because people really care about running GNU, not so much which kernel is hosting it" - LOL, really? Where does it say that? - Ahunt (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
There are many pages debating this. Here is one for instance: https://linuxhint.com/is-android-linux/ 2001:985:2C6E:1:D164:2282:32C6:715B (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This is someone's blog, not a reliable source. - Aoidh (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay two points on that ref. First, it does not support your argument that anyone at all cares about running GNU components or not. Second, the whole article is badly written and basically incoherent. It reads like a poor translation. If you want to make a case based on a ref, then you will need a better ref than that to back it up. - Ahunt (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response! Here are some more references.
People that are unfamiliar with GNU as a name are interested in GNU compatibility on systems that run off a Linux kernel. They refer to it as "regular or usual Linux". If useful I can provide more references related to this. 2001:985:2C6E:1:91F1:1327:368C:7138 (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for posting all those links. I read them all. A few observations on the collection of them: 1. There is no agreement there on the question of what is a "Linux distribution" 2. About a third of them don't even mention GNU at all, so are pretty much off-topic and 3. Only one supports your statement above, "because people really care about running GNU, not so much which kernel is hosting it" and it is an anonymous blog post on Reddit and is basically a rehashing of the old GNU/Linux naming controversy semantic argument. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I do not think it would make sense to explicitly address the naming as such which is also related to the discussion of what constitutes an operating system. I only observe that GNU-based (Debian, RedHat, etc.) and non-GNU based (Android, ChromeOS, etc.) is a topic that is widely discussed even though GNU is not explicitly mentioned. Note that there are also distributions that are explicitly not using certain parts of GNU, but use alternatives for those striving to be GNU-compatible (Alpine). The initial version of Windows Services for Linux also enables Linux versions of GNU to run without using Linux itself by providing Linux-compatibility. I am not aware of any non-GNU based userlands that are compatible with WSL and GNU Bash is promoted as a reason and main entry to use WSL. The focus point for WSL appears supporting common GNU environments on top of Windows. ChromeOS is also using the term "Linux support" to address GNU compatibility. The system itself is Linux-based since its inception. It would be nice to find a way to describe this neutrally, but I agree it is complex. 2001:985:2C6E:1:91F1:1327:368C:7138 (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we can get back to your original idea though that this article should discriminate between distros that use GNU and those that don't. Having read all your refs above, I am not sure that sort of division belongs in this article, given the first sentence: A Linux distribution (often abbreviated as distro) is an operating system made from a software collection that is based upon the Linux kernel and, often, a package management system. Perhaps that differentiation would be better described in the GNU article instead if this one? - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I would say that the GNU article could describe what kind of environments can host GNU (Linux, Hurd, Windows+WSL, etc.) and possibly environments that strive to be GNU-compatible (Alpine). Environments that do not use GNU would be off-topic in that article. 2001:985:2C6E:1:91F1:1327:368C:7138 (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that might bring us closer to addressing your concerns here in total. Do you want to prose some wording on Talk:GNU? or here? -
I was thinking of reflecting this as differentiating in the list of different distributions. I see there is already a separation which is very close plus a section describing non-GNU distributions. Maybe ChromeOS could be moved to a section together with Android. Then the title of the 'widely used distributions' section could reflect they are based on GNU. I would say that non-GNU distributions are actually way more widely used. In addition to Android, distributions like Samsung Orsay being in huge amounts of Smart TVs and popular routers' distros (like FritzOS over here, probably others elsewhere) are way more widely used than any of the distributions that are listed below "widely used distributions". Optionally there could be a note about what technically concerns adding GNU compatibility, but is referred to as Linux support for ChromeOS. The tools I've seen for Android to add this are called "GNU on Android" from what I remember. 2001:985:2C6E:1:91F1:1327:368C:7138 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense to me. - Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I just made the changes as proposed. Please let me know what you think. 2001:985:2C6E:1:6D3F:98AA:BA98:4B42 (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Seems okay like that to me. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this change is confusing and inaccurate. As it stands, Android, which is debated as to whether it counts as a linux distribution, is merged into a category with ChromeOS, which AFAIK is mostly agreed upon as a linux distribution. And pairing these two is not correct. Also, by this change Android gets more focus as a linux distribution than "Lightweight distributions" and "Niche distributions" which are generally accepted as linux distributions. I think the order which existed previously in which android was mentioned in the last makes more sense as debate exists as to whether it is a linux distribution. The distinction of distributions based on GNU and not based on GNU, is I think, not relevant for this article. Explicitly stating that Android or ChromeOS is not based on GNU in their on sections without creating a separate section for them is what I think should be done. --Rashid Rafeek (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Android and ChromeOS are technically similar when it comes to whether they qualify as Linux distributions as neither offer the GNU userland by default, but have an option to install a GNU environment (such as Debian) inside them. Other systems that could fit in this section could possibly be Orsay, Tizen and WebOS. 2001:985:2C6E:0:0:0:0:B66 (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"CAOS Linux" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect CAOS Linux. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 25#CAOS Linux until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"Linux distributions" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Linux distributions and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 15 § Linux distributions until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of pfSense

Greetings. Perhaps I’ve missed something, but this page is about Linux distributions. Why is pfSense (FreeBSD) included in the article? 136.54.54.117 (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed - good catch, it has been removed. - Ahunt (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of AsteroidOS

Please include AsteroidOS, it’s a watch OS 2406:7400:92:A2C8:B45C:CCE8:DF07:9990 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This article includes only a few of the major distributions as examples, it is not an exhaustive list. AsteroidOS is a specialized distribution for smartwatches. - Ahunt (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-mint-dumps-ubuntu-snap/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linux_distribution/Archive_4&oldid=1242910137"