Jump to content

Talk:List of Linux distributions/Archive 2

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

Fortress Linux

Earlier this morning I added the tag

{{refimprovesect}}

to the Fortress Linux section under Slackware based. I'm not real satisfied with re-adding it now that distribution page seems to have risen above WP:COPYVIO, and the entry for FL re-added to this List, under the edit-warring idea (not that there is an edit war, I merely don't want to foment one); I'm tired of it. Somebody else can re-add it, if appropriate.

But can somebody please tell me how any Linux distribution, except maybe Yggdrasil, can be "unprecedented"? It makes no sense to me except as a marketing term, which I don't think is allowed here. Also, how can a distribution be built "from the ground up" and yet influenced by "Slackware, Hardened Linux From Scratch, Zenwalk, Gentoo, Debian, Ubuntu, NetBSD and Freebsd" at the same time? Again sounds like marketing distortion rather than encyclopedic fact to me. Back to WP:Wikislothing for me. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Fortress Linux has been speedily deleted under WP:SPAM apparently. When the issue comes back up in the next 3-4 weeks I'd like admins to consider the prior history (this is from the edit history of this article) of User:Bakker75 Special:Contributions/80.101.112.71 and particularly User:Fortresslinux in their deliberations. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Gee, am I a prophet or what? The Fortress Linux article actually came back in significantly less than 24 hours. This is just a note to anyone interested that there is now an AfD discussion on the subject. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed Fortress Linux from this list article per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fortress_Linux (soon to be archived, it seems) (see diff). The entry has been re-added to the list for the second time, I note (see diff). I thought there was consensus to remove from the list due to non-notability and spam. I must have been mistaken. I believe that either the article needs to go back on WP, or the entry removed again; but I have absolutely zero interest in edit-warring against a single-purpose account. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there's no need to try to get consensus here. The relevant place for discussing the notability of a Linux distro is on the page for that distro. This page is just an aggregation of Linux distributions which have Wikipedia articles (and so pass WP:N). So if an article on some distro has been deleted as spam through AfD, there's no need to get consensus o nthis page as well before deleting it: if User:Krocht31 wants to protest the AfD decision, the correct way is to take it to WP:DRV, not readd it to this article. Of course, I don't want to spend time edit warring against single purpose accounts any more than you do; if s/he does it again I'll leave a note on their talk page. Thanks! -- simxp (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I now have a WP:CLUE. I wish to argue, based on the same reasoning, that threshold for inclusion in this list article (and many or most list articles, I'd assume) would be an article's existence in the encyclopedia (in this case, the existence of an article on the topic of a Linux distribution). It just seems so very simple to figure out inclusion/deletion that way; I'd argue it's a perfect WP:KISS. To my point (which I note is actually OT to this Talk section), this edit seemed to have an inappropriate basis, to me, since the referenced article exists. That is, I believe arguments for deletion on the basis of WP:FAILN (or any other basis) belong to the article so linked from this list, and are not appropriate removals from this list until, on whatever basis, the linked article is actually removed. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Precisely. -- simxp (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Diffs 1 November 2009 and 30 October 2009, are the same text as before. Look, I expect, above all, a Linux distribution maker to have a clue as to what it takes to join a community. What kind of LART do you need exactly, Krocht31, to get it? Please specify. Those of us who have been members in good standing of both communities for years (decades even) have plenty of clues to provide, we just need to find the right one here. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Bleah, just got re-added again (fourth time this go-round). Whose turn is it to remove it this time? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just (in addition to removing it again) left a note on User talk:Krocht31, explaining the reasons and pointing him to this talk page -- simxp (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
...A note which Krocht deleted at the same time as removing this section (though, of course, s/he had every right to do the former, if not the latter: an editor's talk page is their castle and all that). Well, my hope is that the deleting was just Krocht's (mildly over-the-top) way wanting to of draw a line in the sand, put the whole issue behind them, and become a constructive editor... -- simxp (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Extended content

Do you ever think Simxp, Alladin Insane and their other bureaucrats friends will even leave Fortress Linux alone even when it's added properly to this wiki? This wikipedia is "maintained" by unsocial, nerdy and weak persons that have a urgent need for compansation in one or other way. You guys are so (delete) trigger happy in order to receive one of the communistic Barnstars for their work. Do you really think deleting is better then adjusting? I really believe you all are a no-body in real live. -- simxp (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krocht31 (talk • contribs)

Previous comment removed by author per discussion. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well Aladdin, I don't think I have prove to myself to you in any way. What I want to know is, why did you and your friends tried to Denial-of-service_attack our website? You don't like competency at this wiki? Anyway, you and you friends are block permanently from our website and our OS. I am not wasting my time with these kids anymore.Krocht31 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Ubuntu Christian Edition

Why does "Ubuntu Christian Edition" redirect to this page and then there is no listing for said distro? Unless there is any reason why it should not, I think it should be added to the "Unofficial distributions" section. IIRC, this is also a Ubuntu Muslim Edition that might fit as well. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

and ubuntu se hehe satanic edition - nice theme —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.53.185 (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the CE edition was their at one point, but now gone again. Any ideas? Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 01:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I just added it ([1]) to he list. Currently the page itself is under the attack of anti-Christian bigots (yes, I know that these are loaded words, but if there are no problems with Buddhabuntu and Sabily then why with CE?), but it shouldn't avoid it being listed, especially when there is redirect here. Ceplm (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the info. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ubuntu Christian Edition was deleted on the third attempt, several years ago, on the grounds that it was "not notable". Right after that deletion, it was removed from this list, on the grounds that since it wasn't notable enough for an article of its own, it wasn't notable enough to be listed here. Most of the people who worked on that article concluded it was a victim of a deliberate policy of wilful and blatant religious discrimination by Wikipeida.jonathon (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Chrome OS and Chromium OS

deserve a mention here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthpigg (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be only one article on the subject, Chrome OS. Chromium OS currently seems to be a re-direct there. Looking over the article, my opinion of your proposal went up from "maybe" to "probably". Notably, the distribution Navbar is being used in the article, which directs the reader here. That seems to argue for adding the cross-reference to this List. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I came here for the same question. I remembered reading about Chrome OS being based on Ubuntu, however now a quick search doesn't bring up this connection (maybe a more dedicated search will). I found however a connection: Google contracts Canonical (developers of Ubuntu) for Chrome OS work[2][3]. Ben T/C 10:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This may be very interesting info to add to the Chrome OS article, if it's not there already, since it may show to what extent, if any, Chrome is or is not based on Ubuntu. Do keep in mind that some commenters on Internet are ignorant enough to write "Ubuntu" when they mean "Linux", just as some say "World Wide Web" when they mean "Internet" (or vice versa), not the same thing at all. Contracting with developers is exceedingly common, and does not rise to "based on" in the sense we mean it in this List article. For example, in a lab I'm familiar with, both Novell (Suse) and Red Hat engineers are contracted and on site. That does not mean the product being developed (a hardware product) is "based on" either OS distribution (it's just not). I understand that both Debian people contract with Ubuntu, and Ubuntu people work with Debian: But the lineage for writing an encyclopedia List article is actually quite clear.
Still though, this isn't quite on-topic for this thread. As far as I can tell Chrome OS should be added to the list under "Other" until a more direct lineage is detected, but the editors of the current Chromium OS article need a clue or two: It seems to distinguish itself from Chrome by being "Open Source", implying Chrome is not, which then seems to directly contradict the Chrome article. But that's an SEP in my mind. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Chromium OS is a distinct product apart from Chrome OS. notably, chromium is available for do-it-yourselfers right now. today. http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/building-chromium-os .... on a code-level, the relationship between Chromium OS and Chrome OS will be the same as the difference between OpenOffice.org and StarOffice. the Chrome OS article itself supports this: "On the same day, Google released Chrome OS's source code under open source licensing as Chromium OS"... not, mind you, as the source code for Chrome OS, but as the source code for Chromium OS. Earthpigg (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I added an entry for "Google Chrome OS" under "Other". A consensus on chrome os vs chromium os has not yet been reached, so I went ahead and stuck with the current situation... only Chrome OS has an article, so that is the entry i made. Earthpigg (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Next two paragraphs are quotes from my entry:
Google Chrome OS: Designed by Google to work exclusively with web applications. Not yet released in binary form, though source code and directions to manually build it (under the name "Chromium-Based OS") are available.
Reference http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/building-chromium-os

Nova, the Cuban distro, is no longer based on Gentoo

The last version of Nova is based on Ubuntu. You can check the official page and Distrowatch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.184.43 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Mint?

I had heard of Mint on board I was reading, but I haven't seen it on this List of Linux distributions. Brian Pearson (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mint has released a new distribution based in Debian, appart from the main one based on Ubuntu.83.59.85.204 (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How doesMeeGo fit in?

How doesMeeGo fit in? 62.194.120.187 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This list is actually missing alot of the smaller distributions, like lucid puppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.199.144 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ubuntu CE redirtect problem

Hi, Ubuntu CE redirects here but there is no info on that distro. I think that, even if Ubuntu CE is possibly dead (I can't tell, but from their website download page they are still at 9.10 and it is currently April 2011) That there should be a brief mention of it. But I don't know much about it (hence coming here to look it up). I do know it is more of a branded package set of Ubuntu and doesn't deviate very much. However, I think it is notable and should be included (and certainly was before). Maybe I'll just write a quick stub of a blurb about it so that someone else who knows more can have somewhere to start. People rarely do stuff based on discussion page suggestions.Rusl (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus, please. Is a Linux distribution an operating system?

Well, I'm not interested in getting into any edit wars. But a recent revision undid a revision pointing to operating systems as a reference for Linux distributions. If a Linux distribution is not an operating system (the justification was "POV"), then my monitor must not be a monitor, because my monitor is merely a monitor from my POV.

Further, if Linux distributions are NOT operating systems, Yworo, then the references to GNU/Linux in the operating systems article need to be removed as well.

I detect a contradiction. --Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Any linux distribution clearly fits the definition provided by the article for operating system. and that is the POV of the relevant article, in addition to my own.--69.107.87.153 (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose a distro is not an OS. The reason is that an application that runs in one distro usually runs in others as well, without porting, without recompilation, without compatibility layers, without emulators. They just run. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Linux is not an operating system. Linux is one of the kernels of the GNU operating system. User:Quiliro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.101.26 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing distros

  • Parted Magic - minidistro, I have no idea whether it is related to some other distro, or family
  • MoviX - another minidistro, targeted for multimedia (like GeexBox)
  • Gentus - made by Abit, no longer updated. IIRC it was using RPMs, which suggests it was derived from RedHat

I don't have enough knowledge where to include them in the article. Maybe someone know where to put them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.139.188 (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing Distributions, or should article be renamed "x86 X-based Linux Distributions"?

Missing important and classical non X based distributions.

Android? Linux kernel, Java based desktop. Google stewardship. Oracle anti Linux lawsuit.

Mameo? Nokia phones and Internet tablets.

Moblin? Intel's embedded distibution.

Meego? Intel and Nokia agreed to merge their Moblin & Mameo.

μLinux? (Mu) or micro-linux contemporary of Tom's RBT Linux, floppy based minimum linux.

monkey linux? Had mini-X and web server

Shjacks45 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as there are references showing they are notable (or a Wikipedia page with links to references showing notability), I think they should be listed here. Android should definitely be listed, along with Maemo/Moblin/Meego/Tizen (maybe not individually). strcat (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Exherbo is missing as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.232.206 (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


Maemo and Moblin are already on the list. The rest are non-notable. Except for Android, I'm not sure what happened to that.EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Are embedded Linux systems, such as SplashTop, a distribution?

SplashTop Linux systems are "distributed" by using whole computers (often in the BIOS PROM) as their distribution media and as such the binaries are not easily extracted for network transmission.

What defines "distribution"? Is a "distribution" characterized by the media used for storing the binaries such as a CD, a network connection, flash memory such as a USB stick, EEPROM, SD card, ... ?

SplashTop systems are "distributed" on EEPROM's or ROM's for "installation" on (literally in) PC's. The "installation" is conventional in terms of socketing a chip containing SplashTop onto the motherboard and not by the usual transference of the system onto a hard drive.

Embedded system are a type of Linux distribution. The only condition I would put on a "Linux distribution" is being an operating system that uses the Linux kernel.EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Linux Mint

I did not spot Linux Mint as an Ubuntu-based dist. Since it is a widely-used distribution, surely it should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.13.60.38 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Linux Mint is under the list of 'third party' (not 'official') Ubuntu-based Linux distributions. Protip: Most browsers can search a web page with Ctrl+F.EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Pardus

Pardus is a Gentoo fork which is still based on new relases. You can actually see that in Pardus page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.174.71.72 (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it's great. Put it on the list under Gentoo-based distributions.EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Commodore OS Vision

How about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_OS Didn't see it listed on the page as a distro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.107.240.37 (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No, this page is for *notable* Linux distributions. Commodore OS has a short article and no notable source. EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
What defines "notable" and "notable source"? I wouldn't think the length of the article matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.107.240.37 (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry about the length. The reason I disagree with putting Commodore OS on the List of Linux Distributions is it's notability. Contrary to what the page title might tell you, this is a list of notable Linux distributions. Unless it has a variety of independent sources a Linux distribution cannot enter the list. See the General Notability Guidelines for more information.EvilKeyboardCat (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I see now. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.33.5.111 (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What to do about End-of-Live OSs (eg. Ubuntu JeOS)

See my deletion of Ubuntu JeOS: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Linux_distributions&diff=557170697&oldid=557156528

(along with info and refs). I'm not sure this was the right thing (I was being bold..), this might be useful information to someone(?). But it's not an official distribution anymore. It's still available as a functionality (in Ubuntu Server). I don't think it should have been moved to "Third-party distributions". Feel free to revert or move it (or put info, with Ubuntu Server). Not sure what to do with this. I could be wrong.

More generally, is this the right thing to do with (Corporate-sponsored) EOLed distros? Comp.arch (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep them on the list. Notability is not temporary. See WP:NTEMP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilKeyboardCat (talk • contribs) 04:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. I "reverted" though, put it last, and changed a bit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Linux_distributions&diff=559698635&oldid=559429876
Regarding notability, I'm not proposing deleting the JeOS article itself although I see from WP:NTEMP: "articles may be proposed for deletion". But this page is about current distros? There are thousands and we can't keep them all here (that were at one point notable). It seems to be borderline WP:CHANGELOG "lists of changes should be avoided; instead, significant changes should be merged into – and contextualised in – the product's history" I'm not even sure JeOS was that notable. Feel free to revert my revert. comp.arch (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What about SnakeOS ?

Could someone, pls, add a line and data about SnakeOS (a minimal linux used on small soapbox-sized network servers)?

Same for Tomato/TomatoUSB (I see openwrt and ddwrt already in the list). 207.253.7.190 (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ututo isn't shown on graph as Gentoo-based

Article itself and DistroWatch http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ututo say that it is Gentoo-based. And graph shows it as independent. Yurivict (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Linux_distributions/Archive_2&oldid=605377171"