Talk:Guix System Distribution

Distribution of "GNU Operating System" or "Linux distribution"

What is the use of editing Wikipedia article if one is going to clash with undoing my edit. I said it is "distribution of GNU operating system" exactly as referenced on the GuixSD front page. And user ahunt has immediately corrected me that it is "Linux distribution". I understand the controversy, but let us put straight facts, GNU operating system is a name of operating system. I don't understand why is it censored on this page.

Reference below: http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcdrun (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not censorship, by WP:CONSENSUS here on Wikipedia an operating system based upon the Linux kernel is called a Linux distribution, not a GNU distribution. This is in compliance with WP:COMMONNAME. Calling it a GNU operating system is a minority WP:POV viewpoint that is not in general use and is only supported by one organization, the FSF/GNU Project. See also MOS:LINUX. It doesn't matter what the GNU Project calls it, we are not bound by their terminology here in the encyclopedia. Put it this way, if Ford Motors started calling their cars "autodynes", we would still call them cars here on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I am not going to edit anything on Wikipedia, as I wish to refrain from zealous unreasonable fanatics! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcdrun (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Rcdrun: You need to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA to find out more how Wikipedia works. We don't hurl insults and call people names just because we disagree with them here. This isn't a kindergarten. You may also want to read WP:CONSENSUS. In this case there is a long-standing consensus arrived at by hundreds of editors and based upon WP:COMMONAME, about how these are referred to that goes back more than a decade. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

From the GuixSD "About" page - "GuixSD is a GNU/Linux distribution". Thanks for trolling. 70.89.164.17 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

70.89.164.17: you also need to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA as well as MOS:LINUX. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope you realize that it's difficult to Assume Good Faith, and somewhat ironic to slap the No Personal Attacks rule in someone's face who you just dissuaded from contributing to Wikipedia, when you call other editors' reasoning "utter garbage" and show no respect to how a project defines itself. (It's not the GNU project at large, but the Guix project itself that says that GuixSD is a distribution of the GNU operating system. See the project's home page. The "About" page is secondary, and erroneous; I'll see that it gets fixed next.) The analogy of Ford Motors hypothetically calling their automobiles something else is not a suitable one, for various reasons, but in short: seeing GuixSD as "obviously a Linux distro" (like one may see any automobile by Ford as "obviously an automobile") only makes sense to people who don't have an in-depth understanding of the landscape of Linux-based, GNU/Linux-based, and GNU-based operating systems. These are three separate categories, with overlap. GuixSD is one of the ones that fall rather obviously into the third category, obvious at least for anyone with the technical and historical knowledge of what the GNU operating system and a GNU distribution is. The project's home page isn't lying, trust me. :-) And although this is a tangential issue, Wikipedia's policy is in need of revision IMO, as it conflates Linux-based and GNU/Linux-based operating systems. I've seen first-hand how this causes confusion and misinformation among Wikipedia editors, and makes Wikipedia articles less informative. I'm pretty sure that WP:COMMONNAME was never meant to be applied such that widespread misinformation among the public is adopted as truth by Wikipedia... A more suitable analogy to the situation may be where the public uses the term "SSL" to refer to TLS. Wikipedia correctly redirects "SSL" to the article about TLS, noting that frequently the term "SSL" is used to refer both to SSL and TLS. It does not, however, call TLS by the wrong term itself. The number of tech articles out there which don't care about terminological accuracy don't change Wikipedia's commitment to technical accuracy and using authoritative terminology. (On that topic: how many independent sources even exist, which erroneously call GuixSD a "Linux distro"?) This is what needs to be done at the very least on the GuixSD page, as the authors of the project can tell you accurately and authentically what their project is. More generally, it may be applied to the Linux v. GNU/Linux topic, but that's for another day. For now, please refrain from behaving patronizingly to members of the Guix project regarding what their project even is. Thank you. TaylanUB (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You are sounding like you are a member of the Guix project. You may want to review WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm an occasional contributor to the Guix project. I don't see how there can be a conflict of interest here though, when "GNU distribution" is a less popular term than "Linux distribution". It's the latter that may add to the project's popularity. TaylanUB (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. As a contributor to the software project which is the subject of the article you are in a clear conflict of interest in editing the article. As WP:COI explains, please refrain from further edits to the article and make suggestions here on the talk page for any changes you would like to see. These will be evaluated by other editors for inclusion or not. In the next while your past article edits will be reviewed for neutrality, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

GuixSD is being ported to Hurd

@Ahunt: Source. Surely this would mean it's a GNU system that is distributed with two possible kernels, wouldn't you agree? Pikolas (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Porting something doesn't change what the original is, why would it? Arch Hurd exists, that doesn't change what Arch Linux itself is. - Aoidh (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Aoidh, that is a separate issue. The Linux version Guix is still a Linux distribution. A version with Hurd, if it happens would be something else, probably an experimental distro. The Hurd kernel page says: " It may not be ready for production use, as there are still some bugs and missing features. However, it should be a good base for further development and non-critical application usage.", So it is not operationally ready for daily use. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no "Linux version" or "Hurd version" of GuixSD as a project. The Guix System Distribution, like any distribution of the GNU operating system, supports multiple kernels, namely the GNU kernel, and alternatives. Usually development focuses on Linux-libre early on (and Linux-libre is a GNU project derived from Linux, by the way), as that gets an up and running system most quickly for most purposes, including further development. The comparison to ArchLinux/ArchHurd is not a suitable one, as ArchHurd is a spin-off project that isn't one with the ArchLinux project. GuixSD is one project, with support for the GNU kernel Hurd being a primary goal, since it's a distribution of the GNU operating system. TaylanUB (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Same arguments again

We have another editor trying to argue that this operating system, which uses the Linux kernel, is somehow not a Linux distribution but a GNU distribution, because "It's not part of the family of Linux-based OSs, but part of the family of GNU derivatives. Prioritizing support for Hurd, use of Linux-libre, and "GNU" being in the name aren't incidental. Use of the Linux kernel is.". This is a spurious argument and goes against above consensus, plus the consensus expressed at MOS:LINUX. Regardless of any intentions the devs may one day have that Hurd will be functional, right now it runs the Linux kernel so it is a Linux distribution. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus here. You dissuaded an editor from contributing, so no dissenters were left. Most people aren't motivated to take part in this discussion. I addressed the topic in-depth above. TaylanUB (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your additions here. As with earlier editors, you still haven't made a case for why an operating system running the Linux kernel is not a Linux distribution. - Ahunt (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

If the criterion for an OS distribution to be considered a Linux distro is for it to be running the Linux kernel, then Android would likewise be a Linux distro. The Wikipedia article for Android does not call it a Linux distro. Somewhere further down the article, it says this: "Android is a Linux distribution according to the Linux Foundation,[143] Google's open-source chief Chris DiBona,[144] and several journalists.[145][146] Others, such as Google engineer Patrick Brady, say that Android is not Linux in the traditional Unix-like Linux distribution sense; Android does not include the GNU C Library (it uses Bionic as an alternative C library) and some of other components typically found in Linux distributions.[147]" It seems dissent by an engineer or two was enough to stop Wikipedia from referring to it as a Linux distro, or how does that work in the case of Android? If that is the case though, I'd certainly expect the same treatment for GuixSD. :-) In the end of the day, there is no clear definition of the term "Linux distribution". By embracing and encouraging the term as an accurate description of anything at all, rather than recognizing its public use as a vaguely defined term (and often technically inaccurate, though that's aside the point in this case), Wikipedia is shooting itself in the foot, putting us into situations like the one we're in right now. But I don't have the motivation (right now at least, but probably never) to go and start a process of trying to change MOS:Linux altogether, so all I expect at the moment is for the GuixSD article not to be sullied by that mistake, by acknowledging at least that MOS:Linux doesn't apply to it, since the project explicitly says that GuixSD is a distribution of the GNU operating system first and foremost, and not a GNU/Linux distribution. Material implications of that, just to make it clear it isn't pure semantics, are: intending to provide first-hand support for using the Hurd as the system's kernel (and this is implemented as of the beta release 0.12.0), having no intent to provide alternatives to the GCC toolchain in the bootstrapping of the system, having no intent to provide alternatives to glibc in terms of what C standard library is used throughout the system, and so on. Contrast this with systems for which the Linux kernel is considered a central and defining component, with alternative compiler toolchains to GCC, alternative C standard libraries to glibc, etc. being open considerations, or actually in use. Compare it e.g. to Alpine Linux which is based on the musl C library and may therefore be considered literally not a GNU/Linux distribution, and yet a Linux distribution. (This also happens to be a clear example of where Wikipedia's conflation of "Linux distribution" and "GNU/Linux distribution" is problematic. I can't wrap my head around the logic "hey, let's adopt at best vaguely defined and technically inaccurate terms, as used by laypersons in the public, in our encyclopedia!") TaylanUB (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ahunt: As of the latest version, GuixSD now supports Hurd. So it can't be really defined as a "Linux distribution" [sic]. ~★ nmaia ^d 16:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, the holidays have been busy for me here! Okay let's look at what the refs and policies both say. Yes apparently Guix is now available with either the Linux-Libre kernel or the Hurd kernel, although the official download page only offers Linux, so it isn't clear how a user could install the Hurd-powered version. The official Hurd status page says that it "may not be ready for production use, as there are still some bugs and missing features. However, it should be a good base for further development and non-critical application usage". So it seems pretty clear from those that Guix with Hurd is not readily available and really only used for testing at this point in time. Of course one can hope that it will improve over time, but the official FAQs for Hurd say that there are only a few developers working on Hurd and only in their spare time, so it is unlikely to progress quickly. The FAQs also indicate that Hurd runs slower than Linux, so again will only likley be used for testing and non-production uses. So is Guix a Linux distro or something else? The official Guix documentation says, "GuixSD is a GNU/Linux distribution..." Of course as per MOS:LINUX, here on Wikipedia we use the term Linux distribution and GNU/Linux distribution is a redirect. You will note that Debian is available with both Linux and Hurd versions (Debian GNU/Hurd) and it is described as a Linux distribution in the main Debian article. All of this evidence indicates to me that GUIX is a Linux distribution for Wikipedia purposes. If at some point a Hurd version, that is of production quality, is released and made publicly available I would, at that point argue that it would be both a Linux distribution and a GNU distribution. - Ahunt (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The About page of the project is not the "official Guix documentation." That can be found [[1]]. The whole [7] of the manual is titled "GNU Distribution" and begins with the sentence "Guix comes with a distribution of the GNU system consisting entirely of free software." The [of the project] has also always talked about a distribution of the GNU operating system and not a GNU/Linux distribution. The About page was the only exception, and has been [[2]] after a bug report. GuixSD is a GNU distribution (that currently uses the Linux-libre kernel) as now stated uniformly everywhere in its website and documentation; the only exception was a bug. The project-wise differences between a GNU distribution, a GNU/Linux distribution, and Linux distribution have been explained above. (Wikipedia fails to distinguish between GNU/Linux and Linux distributions, which is a separate topic.) The state of the Hurd in terms of its development has nothing to do with the topic. The only argument I could see someone making would be one related to the fact that the default installation medium of the GuixSD GNU distribution currently deploys a GNU/Linux operating system. (Here we get into a distinction between the project, and the raw software installed on a machine by its official installation media at any given point in time.) This is reflected in the fact that the intro paragraph mentions Linux-libre being the kernel currently in use. It's also obviously subject to change as Hurd support matures and Hurd-based GuixSD installation media become available. But if you still think it's absolutely important for some reason to use the term "Linux distribution" somewhere in the article, you could try to articulate it in a way that says that the installation media of the latest releases deploy a "Linux distribution" on the user's machine, which however doesn't change the fact that GuixSD is a distribution of the GNU operating system. I'm not sure if this would fall under original research however; so far the article only relies on official documentation of the project. TaylanUB (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The term "GNU Operating System", when applied to Linux kernel-based systems, doesn't seem to have any meaning, beyond marketing, as distinct from a Linux distribution. From what I can tell the GNU Project's use of the term is just a continuation of the GNU/Linux naming controversy by other means, in other words the attempt to inject the term "GNU" instead of "Linux". As you note above the Hurd-powered version of Guix is not operational, so all we are left with is an operating system based on the Linux kernal, which here on Wikipedia, as per WP:COMMONNAME we call a "Linux distribution". As noted elsewhere we don't accept marketing-speak from any organizations. "Wikipedia does not exist to facilitate corporate "communication strategies" or other forms of marketing." - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think after ten days of no further debate we have established that Guix is a Linux distribution, as they term is used on Wikipedia, and that one day may also be operational with the Hurd kernel. This is the same case as Debian and should be described the same way. I would suggest that when a Hurd-powered version is actually operational we have a discussion what to call that, based on refs, perhaps a GNU distribution in addition to a Linux distribution, but we aren't there yet. - Ahunt (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The technical distinctions of a distribution of the GNU operating system from a "Linux distribution" as defined by Wikipedia were explained before in this discussion. Please cease the destructive behavior over this article. Enforcing a factually inaccurate change through exhaustion of a contributor's will to resist it is anti-social behavior. TaylanUB (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to read WP:AGF and especially WP:NPA. We arrived at a consensus here because no reasonable arguments were made that this is GNU distribution and not a Linux distribution. You can't just carry out personal attacks to get what you want here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable arguments were provided, and I'm afraid you never responded to them. Please feel free to do so any time to continue the discussion from where you've left it. Until then, please don't change the article. Also, you've repeatedly made assumptions about me being politically motivated (have not assumed good faith), have used abusive language in the past (calling my reasoning "utter garbage"), and characterized my dissent towards this behavior as carrying out personal attacks, going as far as removing an edit of mine on this talk page. I continue to see this as anti-social behavior and a bullying method, and will not tolerate it. I return to you all requests to assume good faith and not to resort to personal attacks, and will ask for moderative action if this behavior continues. TaylanUB (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You have already carried out two personal attacks, one of which had to be removed from this page. You have also indicated above that you are in a conflict of interest with regard to this subject as you are a GUIX developer. As per WP:COI you may make suggestions here for improving the article for other editors to assess for inclusion, but please refrain from editing the article, as required by the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines. - Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Since you took this to an admin and were admonished for your personal attacks and conflict of interest, I'll put the call here to see if any other editors have any further input into this dispute before it is closed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay since a whole week has passed with no further input we can close this issue as solved by consensus. I'll make the changes to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I will not contribute to any free software-related parts of Wikipedia anymore. The community is clearly unreasonable. Just take this as a data point that you've dissuaded a second contributor from sticking around. Bye. And to be clear: there is no consensus here. You've made this change in spite of all the arguments laid out against it, without addressing those arguments. TaylanUB (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@TaylanUB: That's very unfortunate and I hope you reconsider that decision. For the record, I agree with your stance on this issue. Guix is a notable example of a logical flaw in the "Linux as an OS" argument, and we should not bend the facts to fit a specific worldview just because it's more popular. ~★ nmaia ^d 17:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I see the article doesn't call GuixSD a Linux distribution now. Why is the consensus of Wikipedians on what to call any software distribution including the Linux kernel not being honored, as it should be no matter how much it upsets those on the losing side, particularly if they're in a conflict of interest? 176.83.204.30 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I see it has been updated today. - Ahunt (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The name of a list

From the article:-

"On February 3, 2015, the distribution was added to the Free Software Foundation's list of free distributions."

The name of the list to which Guix SD was added is "Free GNU/Linux distributions". The name is descriptive, more so than "free distributions" which only makes sense to someone already familiar with what a "distribution" is.

The aforementioned sentence should use the actual name of the list: it is not advertising to use the actual name of the list; MOS:LINUX is not applicable here; this is not an attempt to push FSF's point of view; the point is accuracy and concision (the name concisely expresses a characteristic of the list). Leboite (talk) 12:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't use the term "GNU/Linux" on Wikipedia, even when other people or organizations use it, even in the name of a list. 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. 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. We don't used POV terms in our articles, because then they are surreptitiously promoting that point-of-view. 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. - Ahunt (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response Ahunt; I have read the resources you suggested. I see nothing to corroborate your assertion that 'We don't use the term "GNU/Linux" [...] even in the name of a list'. What I do see is that "GNU/Linux" may be used when it forms the name of a distribution and it naturally follows that it may be used when it forms the name of anything at all. Therefore it is perfectly correct to use the name of the list: "Free GNU/Linux distributions". Leboite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No actually that doesn't logically follow and we don't do that because it would amount to an endorsement of the POV terminology that we have a consensus not to use. Basically we are not here to promote the FSF/GNU project's public relations campaign in support of its agenda. - Ahunt (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Ahunt You are mistaken: using the proper name of something can in no way be construed as an endorsement or promotion of the thing. You are effectively repeating your assertion that 'We don't use the term "GNU/Linux" [...] even in the name of a list' for which I can find no corroborating evidence. Please provide evidence of the consensus of which you wrote. Leboite (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It is clearly spelled out in the Manual of Style at MOS:LINUX, which says in total, "Use "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux" to refer to the family of operating systems based on the Linux kernel. The term "GNU/Linux" may still be written as part of the proper names of individual operating systems and Linux distributions. GNU/Linux naming controversy does exist and "GNU/Linux" is a name advocated by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Wikipedia, however, prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources). The consensus of discussions in Talk:Linux/Name is that the point of view of the FSF is not the common English-language usage." It can only be used in "proper names of individual operating systems and Linux distributions". Lists are not included in that sole exception. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's see ... it's a gnu project using the hurd kernel but you are going to insist on calling it Linux. Great. No wonder anyone with a brain is running away from wikipedia 116.231.75.71 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? This discussion is about a the name of a list. - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Name of this Linux distribution

Apparently, its developers now call it just Guix System, rather than Guix System Distribution. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean we should change the title of this article. Considering the widespread rejection of terms like GNU/Linux, we might even achieve a consensus to use here the name Guix Linux Distribution, to drive home the point that those in a conflict of interest don't get to tell everyone else how to call the software they write. If it hurts, tough!185.23.220.233 (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Their home and "overview" page seems to just call it Guix, whereas the download page calls it Guix System, so they seem inconsistent. I could not find any statement of its formal name, so that might not have changed and these are just shortforms. We work from WP:COMMONNAME, but currently Guix redirects to GNU Guix, the package manager, not here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I have found such statement, but I'm not going to say where, since I prefer the article the way it is. Die reinste Freude ist die Schadenfreude. 185.23.220.233 (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Merge into Guix

Hi. In the manual it is stated:

@cindex Guix System
@cindex GuixSD, now Guix System
@cindex Guix System Distribution, now Guix System
You can install GNU@tie{}Guix on top of an existing GNU/Linux system where it
complements the available tools without interference (@pxref{Installation}),
or you can use it as a standalone operating system distribution,
@dfn{Guix@tie{}System}@footnote{We used to refer to Guix System as ``Guix
System Distribution or ``GuixSD.  We now consider it makes more sense to
group everything under the ``Guix banner since, after all, Guix System is
readily available through the @command{guix system} command, even if you're
using a different distro underneath!}[3]

I therefore propose we merge this article into Guix.--So9q (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• support This artikel doesn't have enough notability and this distro itself just sucks! so no problem to merge.--Editor-1 (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There has been no rejections for more than a week so I will go ahead with the merge soon.So9q (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge is now done.--So9q (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)