Wikipedia

Talk:Comparison of Linux distributions/Archive 5

< Talk:Comparison of Linux distributions
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Kapouer in topic Distributions doing regression tests and continuous integration
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Comparison of Linux distributions. 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) 16:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Alpine based on Linux_Router_Project ?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have the idea that Alpine grew from Linux_Router_Project -- don't have a reference for this 65.118.97.26 (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

cool, let us know if you find sources. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of Linux distributions. 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) 21:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Formatting Errors in Tables

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I don't know enough to fix it, but by adding links to the column headings, at least in the security featues table for the second feature column (3rd column since first is distro name), and probably for all columns in all tables, the sort function is broken. Example: On the tabled referred to, I can click on the column heading of the second column (first feature column) and the table sorts on that column; click it again and reverse the order of sort. This doesn't work on the next column, presumably because in adding a link to another article, it was broken. If nobody fixes this I'll come back and try myself eventually. Be warned, I may screw up worse. There's incentive for ya. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. I tried to replicate the error, but all the sorting functions are working for me. Does anyone else have this issue? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Still broken for me. Specifically the 3rd, 5th, & 6th columns. Try sorting the 3rd column, "Mandatory access control". I thing the 4th column "Software executable space protection" is an example of how it is SUPPOSED to done. Click on "Software" and it sorts; click on "executable . . ." and you go to another article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes now I see it. Do you see the little up/down carrots next to the label? Those work for me, I didn't even know you could just click on the label itself. The only way I can think of to fix this would be to remove the wikilinks entirely, but if the carrots are showing up for you then clicking on those should work fine. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Do you see the little up/down carrots next to the label?" No. Not unless I turn off all styles and unset any color settings. This is the hazard of using monochrome images or depending on transparent portions for contrast in an icon image. Very bad practice IMO (no H, nothing H about my Os).

"The only way I can think of to fix this would be to remove the wikilinks entirely . . ." No, as I mentioned, the fourth column, "Software . . ." is done correctly. In any theme or color setting anyone is likely to use the portion of the label that you click on to sort the column and the portion that is a link to another article is in a different color. See my earlier description. I may have a go at fixing it myself later if someone else doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Current Stable Version/Release Date

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In this table, should the release dates for the current stable versions be moved next to the "Current Stable Version" column? At the moment they are separated by the "Security Updates (years)" column. Psypherium (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Photon OS

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Should Photon OS be included here? It is "an open source, minimal Linux container" optimized for VMWare environments. --rogerd (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think per WP:LISTCRITERIA an entry in this list should meet some notability standard, although below that required for an article. So I think for instance we should not include distributions that were one-time student projects that were never maintained. But I guess if Photon OS is maintained and distributed (you can download it), and as you say "an open source, minimal Linux container", then it might belong on the list. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Unless the distribution has a stand-alone article to show that it is notable, it should not be added. But of course anyone is welcome to write a short stub with a few independent sources. GermanJoe (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, the only mention of it in wikipedia that I can find is in the disambiguation page Photon (disambiguation). I will start working on a Photon OS article, with the goal of having enough information in it to add to this list. There is a lot of information out there, since it is maintained by VMware, Inc.. --rogerd (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Double language

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've noticed Dutch words on the page mixed with English words. Looking at the source I saw tags like: { {Free|Gratis} } (spaces are not included in the source, but I could not get it as "plain" text)

Although my settings are all English, I still get the Dutch words, which is annoying.

My question is, is this intended on this page? And if so, are multilingual sentences an unintended consequence of this design choice? For example: Some editions are gratis

Petzep (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Gratis is used in English when discussing software, because there is a distinction between different types of "free" software; "gratis" means free as no monetary cost, "libre" means free as in without restrictions or with limited restrictions. This is the same distinction as between freeware (gratis) and free software (libre). See also Gratis versus libre, wikt:gratis#English, wikt:libre#English. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I replaced all references of "gratis" with "free" "none" because the column header explicitly says "cost". There is no need to disambiguate libre vs gratis within that table, plus gratis is an awkward word to use. Northern Moonlight 04:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Inactive distributions

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

My edit removing BLAG Linux and GNU was reverted by User:GermanJoe on the basis of "may still be of encyclopedic interest for some readers". The text explicitly states in the lead and in a comment that the list is only for active distributions. Is there consensus to include inactive distributions? If so, these need to be rewritten, otherwise the edit removing its listing should be restored. Greenman (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Greenman: I missed that part somehow. But if the lead requires "active" distributions, why is there a status column distinguishing between active and inactive entries? Is that a different distinction? But aside from my confusion, I don't see why inactive distributions should be neccessarily removed. The amount of notable distros seems manageable, and notable Wiki topics remain notable even if discontinued or inactive. A possible Plan B could be to separate these distributions into an "Inactive" section of their own (not exactly common, but some other software-related lists use this approach) - depending on editor consensus of course, whatever is seen as best solution. GermanJoe (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I personally support retaining notable, inactive distributions, as is the case with most software list articles, so let's just wait for further input to see if there's agreement before making further changes one way or another. Greenman (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we should keep the notable inactive distros in the table as we have it now -- as long as a distro is notable, it's notable. Maybe we could just scratch the active requirement as active but not-notable distros are not notable. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Done - I have gone ahead and removed the "must be active" restriction (per current practise and above comments). But of course consensus can change in either direction, if other editors disagree in the future. GermanJoe (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

In general, I think that when "notability" in uncertain, Wikipedia lists should err on the side of including, rather than excluding, but this list is just way too long to be useful. There are certainly not 93 "notable" distros. Maybe (being generously inclusive) there are 40. Not 93.

Now on the topic of "inactive". Some distros have historical significance, and should be included in an encyclopedia even when no longer active. The distros in this list which started before the year 2000 are probably in that category (though actually all are still active!). But distros which came into being after 2000 and didn't last until now - no, those are not notable, and do not belong in Wikipedia. If you do not agree, please state reasonable notability criteria, otherwise those distros should be removed. Longitude2 (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Guix System

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The link for Guix System leads to the GNU Guix (Package Manager for GNU Guix System) article, not Guix System or GNU Guix System. 99.7.207.171 (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

MX Linux missing from this list.

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

MX Linux began in a discussion about future options among members of the MEPIS community in December 2013. Developers from antiX then joined them, bringing the ISO build system as well as the Live-USB/DVD technology. The name “MX” was chosen to combine the first letter of Mepis with the last of antiX, thus symbolizing their collaboration. In order to be listed on DistroWatch, MX Linux was presented as a version of antiX and released its first version in March of 2014. It received its own DistroWatch page as a separate distribution with the release of the first Public Beta of MX-16 on November 2, 2016. 72.188.27.127 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to add it. Guy Harris (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Distributions doing regression tests and continuous integration

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A huge difference in the quality of the distribution comes from the presence of a continuous integration service, where applicable. For instance, many linux users have no idea that Debian CI checks each new package test suite against reverse dependencies test suites, which vastly improves the quality of the distribution. Kapouer (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_Linux_distributions/Archive_5&oldid=1242195778"