Talk:Linux/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Fultus spam

Hello,

I'm about your "revert" editing (13 December 2006) for the Linux Documentation eLibrary on the Linux page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/linux

Fultus Technical Documentation eLibrary - Linux http://elibrary.ful[breaklink]tus.com/linux/

Please explain WHY? you named our trustable and valuable FREE resource as SPAM?

Each day THOUSANDS of people using this resource, THOUSANDS links from web sites, discussion forums and so on...

Please Use Google search http://www.google.com/search?q=elibrary+fultus

Is it SPAM? Please explain.

-Oleg Vyushin ovv(at)fultus.com

(unsigned by User:Fultus)

The link you provided was a mirror of The Linux Documentation Project, which was already included as different link. It doesn't help that you work for Fultus. SPAM means "self promotion and marketing". Chris Pickett 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Linux

I don't know exactly who is the original creator of Linux, but I get the information from this link: http://www.linux.org/info/linus.html

http://www.linux.org/info/ (unsigned by User:MrFirewall)

He wrote the kernel, not the operating system. Chris Pickett 19:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The quality of the article has degenerated fast

The intro of the article could have been written by Stallman. The article lacks the quite interesting facts of how the kernel ended up for free modification. BTW, where is Alan Cox? How does Stallman end up being more interesting person, with photo and everything than Cox, who truly is a man to mention when we are discussing Linux, not GNU? I read this article a while ago, and if I remember correctly, it had more to do with Linux.

Has Stallman edited the page? User:geminga

Stallman hasn't edited it recently, if ever. The article for "Linux not GNU" is at: Linux kernel. Cox is mentioned there. I won't comment further, the discussion lower down explains the issue of GNU being mentioned or not in previous versions. Gronky 18:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Cox is barely mentioned on Linux kernel. Maybe you could improve that. Gronky 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hysterical that there is a picture of Stallman before Torvalds in this article. Grouse 11:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Stallman worked on this OS for eight years before Torvalds did anything. Some people don't know that, but Wikipedia must reflect fact, not common misconceptions. Gronky 12:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest

Just out of interest, what do the GNU claim to have actually done? They have built the GNU toolchain and created the GPL but what else have they done to deserve the credit for creation of this OS? I am intrigued but the gnu website itself does not cover this very well. One of the issues I have really is that according to the GNU history, the project was to create a 'free as in freedom to do stuff' OS. These freedoms are outlined as: copy, change and distribute. Now, I do not know of any distro other than Debian now that covers this in its entirety. This, to me seems to indicate that whilst, yes, at one point the system would have been called 'GNU/Linux', what we now have is a system based on that with common components but with extra components added to it. (for example, the distro's that include proprietory drivers or software etc). They don't fulfil the ideological goal of the GNU Project so why should they be using the GNU name (in a way, wouldn't it actually be bad to do so)?

Also, yes, you can build a distro that comprises of GNU based tools (gnome, other gnu tools etc...) but you can also choose far more alternative programs that aren't!-Localzuk^(talk) 21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In 1983, no one was trying to make this OS. Then Richard Stallman got annoyed at the lack of a free software operating system, so he announced his plan to work until one existed. First, he looked around at what already existed. There wasn't much, but there was TeX for typesetting and the X Window System for displaying 2D graphics. So he decided to start working on all the other pieces. He wrote an editor for writing code (Emacs), then he wrote a compiler to develope code (GCC), then a debugger because there were no good debuggers at the time (GDB). By this time, others had joined the GNU project effort, and a standard C library was written (Glibc), as well as a shell (Bash) and all the do-one-thing-and-do-it-well command line utilities that make up a Unix useland (coreutils). Along the way he wrote licences and raised funds and hired developers. When the operating system was pretty much finished, someone else coincidentally wrote a piece of software that could be added to GNU to make a finished Unix-like OS. That coincidentally developed single last piece was the Linux kernel. The combination of GNU plus this Linux kernel was called Linux for some confused reason - probably because the kernel and the OS because available at the same time and people weren't told of the difference. So you see, it is GNU that set out to write an OS, and it is GNU that did the work that made specifically an OS exist (rather than a random collection of a 2D display engine, a typesetting system, or a hardware resource allocator), and it was GNU that did more work and for longer than any of the other contributors. That is why this article about this OS should mention GNU as its defining characteristic (and this is why many people ask that the OS be referred to as GNU+Linux or GNU/Linux). I am not aware of any Unix-like Linux-using OS that exists without GNU. For one example, I don't think there is a compatible, POSIX-compliant libc to replace Glibc. More information can be read here: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/ Gronky 21:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now read that and understand the position they put forward. A still think there are many issues with calling such a system GNU/Linux though. Personally, if I was Stallman I would not want the GNU Project linked with distros such as Linspire or Mandriva due to the huge amount of proprietory stuff that is included and the way the free versions are treated (and their users).-Localzuk^(talk) 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to reserve the name "GNU/Linux" for distributions that are purely free software? After all, that is the ideal of GNU.

The widespread practice of adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux system is a major problem for our community. It teaches the users that non-free software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit of "Linux". Many "Linux" User Groups make it part of their mission to help users use non-free add-ons, and may even invite salesmen to come and make sales pitches for them. They adopt goals such as "helping the users" of GNU/Linux (including helping them use non-free applications and drivers), or making the system more popular even at the cost of freedom.

The question is how to try to change this.

Given that most of the community which uses GNU with Linux already does not realize that's what it is, for us to disown these adulterated versions, saying they are not really GNU, would not teach the users to value freedom more. They would not get the intended message. They would only respond they never thought these systems were GNU in the first place.

The way to lead these users to see a connection with freedom is exactly the opposite: to inform them that all these system versions are versions of GNU, that they all are based on a system that exists specifically for the sake of the users' freedom. With this understanding, they can start to recognize the distributions that include non-free software as perverted, adulterated versions of GNU, instead of thinking they are proper and appropriate "versions of Linux".

It is very useful to start GNU/Linux User Groups, which call the system GNU/Linux and adopt the ideals of the GNU Project as a basis for their activities. If the Linux User Group in your area has the problems describe above, we suggest you either campaign within the group to change its orientation (and name) or start a new group. The people who focus on the more superficial goals have a right to their views, but don't let them drag you along!

Quotation from the GNU/Linux FAQ written by Richard Stallman. -- mms 21:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to go to a site that I have read already. My point is that regardless of the arguments of Stallman it still seems odd that they want all Linux distros to be called 'GNU/Linux' which is in direct opposition to their ideals. -Localzuk^(talk) 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"For one example, I don't think there is a compatible, POSIX-compliant libc to replace Glibc." I don't know if uClibc, dietlibc, and Newlib are fully POSIX-compliant, but they're close enough to be Unix-like. For example, DeLi Linux is a Unix-like operating system, and it uses uClibc. — A.M. 20:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

uClibc, dietlibc, and Newlib are all way way short of being POSIX-compliant. uClibc is for embedded systems - that's why DeLi Linux cannot run most applications written for GNU/Linux and other Unix-like systems. Gronky 04:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Which "applications written for GNU/Linux and other Unix-like systems" is DeLi Linux unable to run? It includes 125 binary packages of programs and libraries, and a ports tree with 162 programs and libraries (some, but not all, of which do not have a binary package). There are probably many more that can run, but are omitted to keep the size low or because of lack of developers (it seems to be mostly developed by just one person). Even if there are some applications that it can't run, that does not mean that it is not a "Unix-like Linux-using OS". — A.M. 06:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I spot a lot of GNU utilities in that list, and the FSF would probably want you to call DeLi Linux a GNU/Linux as well, even though it doesn't use glibc. (They would just call it an incomplete GNU/Linux.) Sigh. 70.53.40.213 08:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Chris Pickett 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Reorganisation

Sorry, this doesn't make much sense. Why is everything in a "usage" supersection? Development doesn't belong in there, for a start. We need to split this back up into a flatter article structure. The quadruple-nested see also in the middle is just wrong. Chris Cunningham 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I figured that Programming on Linux (the old subsection of Development) didn't have much to do with the cost analysis. It also seems to me that one of the great uses of Linux is for development as a programmer, regardless of which platform you're targeting, and so I moved it into Usage. In fact the only thing that got moved into Usage that wasn't there before was programming. The rest are subsections that I split out, because Enterprise computing != Embedded systems computing != Supercomputing != Server usage.

I realize I made a lot of edits, and I'm not going to edit the front anymore, but please recognize that I spent 3 hours on the page in a row and that I made my best efforts not to delete anything, only to reorganize things more logically. The only stuff I deleted was some superfluous bits in History. 70.53.41.236 15:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, certainly, I appreciate the effort and that's why I wanted to discuss the situation before editing. I think there needs to be some real discussion about the future direction of the article now to be honest, and it would be a good distraction from giving overdue attention to the GNU/ argument for a while. Chris Cunningham 19:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read much of the GNU argument. I'm glad that my effort isn't considered a waste, thanks. I think what I'd like to see in the article is expansion of the subsections I've outlined. I agree that quad-nesting looks ugly. I do believe that a usage section is useful, so that we have a common place to describe the different scenarios in which Linux is used. Chris Pickett 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, a supersection called "usage" is a bad start on this. It has eveything lumped underneath it, and the actual parts concerning how the OS is directly used are spread thinly through the whole section. This needs to be addressed. Chris Cunningham 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think the comparison of windows and linux stuff should be moved completely out of the usage/desktop subsection and into a main section of its own, so that one doesn't have to keep reading about Windows, and also because the comparison can be made for every use case, not just the desktop. Chris Pickett 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean a "comparisons" subsection including things like proprietary embedded systems, mainframe Unixen, other free OSes? I could buy that. Chris Cunningham 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I really dislike the Linus and RMS pictures, don't those really belong on the rms and linus pages respectively? It makes it seem like Linux is all RMS and Linus versus each other, when really its much much more than that (and to some extent, they probably help indirectly to polarize the GNU debate). If you want a Linux Celebrities article with photos of them all then sure. Chris Pickett 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think most editors disagree with this. The pictures help humanise an article which is otherwise difficult to illustrate. It's better than having ten different distro shots. Chris Cunningham 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead, pictures of how a distribution/OS is organized in terms of packages would be useful, so that the reader can learn something from them and so that they correspond better with the text. Chris Pickett 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be illustrated in a non-useless manner. Linux is basically Just Another Unix in this respect, and distros vary widely (Debian for instance has its own rigourous internal organisation that goes way beyond most distros). Chris Cunningham 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tux should be mentioned as the Linux mascot somewhere in the body text. Chris Pickett 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this really interesting enough to mention? It used to be in there, I think, before it was split out into its own article. Chris Cunningham 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally think the Linus quote is a bit silly, and it's also copied from the kernel page. Chris Pickett 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but unfortunately most of the people who feel strongly about the issue don't read IPA. Chris Cunningham 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see some description of package management and how it works somewhere, e.g. you can type apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade and your whole system is up-to-date, since for me that's one of the best parts of using Linux. A brief survey of the different Linux distributions would be nice (Red Hat, SuSE, Linspire, Slackware, Gentoo, Debian, Ubuntu, Linux From Scratch should cover it), and some discussion of X, GNOME, KDE, and window managers might be nice. Chris Pickett 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This balloons the article. It's difficult to do such a thing in a way which reads like an encyclopedia as opposed to a magazine. Chris Cunningham 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardware and device compatability isn't really mentioned anywhere but it's still a major issue (there are both +ve and -ve aspects here). Chris Pickett 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be writing it, though. Chris Cunningham 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I see it, the reason this article doesn't improve is that people spend all their energy on the flame war arguments, and other people come along and get turned off by that. Archiving helps clean up this page so useful discussion can happen, but it isn't necessarily good, because now people will just reopen the discussions without reading the archives. I didn't read all the archives, there's no summary of the discussion, and I'm pretty sure other people don't read them either. I'm just complaining about the situation here. Chris Pickett 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Support section could be expanded. Chris Pickett 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What more is there to say, though? Chris Cunningham 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

man pages, documentation, sourceforge and groupware, bug tracking (distribution and project level), stable vs. unstable guarantees and back-ports, release early release often, publically available repositories, users are often welcome to send patches, TLDP?, specific helpful sites (e.g. linuxquestions.org), discuss mailing lists in a bit more detail (bugs, rfes, announcements, development), freenode as the primary irc network, rtfm and How To Ask Questions The Smart Way, and in fact, maybe that's a good place to discuss device drivers too? I'm not saying these are necessarily appropriate but that's off the top of my head. Chris Pickett 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and finally, as I mentioned to Adrian up above with the <pre> block, I'd like to see a discussion of systems without GNU components or without non-GNU components (since apparently they exist). Chris Pickett 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a section specifically for embedded devices would be good. Chris Cunningham 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems like a summary of the Linux kernel and the GNU pages would also be useful (in terms of their technical features, not the politicking). I realize by that point the article might be getting long, but that's okay, that's when you start to split out sub-articles (per WP policy as far as I interpret). As long as text isn't blatantly duplicated from other articles I don't see any problems with adding more content. Chris Pickett 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What, like an architecute section? it's difficult to see how this would read in a distro-neutral manner. Chris Cunningham 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, these are just my ideas... I think in general adding significant text and doing bulk copyediting will give people something useful to do, and that as a general rule of thumb, one should try to write more article text than discussion text (I don't think anybody actually does this, but it would sure be nice).

Sorry for not linebreaking any of that, I don't have a lot of time to make up a really coherent proposal right now. Cheers, Chris Pickett 22:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you've really explained what was wrong with the previous organisation. Your suggestions could be carried out using the old layout IMO. I'm considering shifting things back, I really don't like that Usage section Chris Cunningham 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, go nuts, because I've basically lost interest. If the usage section is really bothering you then by all means improve/eliminate. That's what prompted me to split out subsections and try to group things in the first place, I'm not saying I got it right. Take care, Chris Pickett 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

linux vendor

The history section contains this line:

"Linux vendors combine and distribute the kernel, GNU components, and non-GNU components with additional package management software in the form of Linux distributions."

I wouldn't call community projects like Debian or Gentoo or numerous others, Linux vendors. Perhaps someone can come up with a better term? --MarSch 11:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Vendor is the correct term. Community-based distributions refer to themselves as vendors on occasion. Chris Cunningham 12:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I've moved the rest of the terminology debate to the most recent archive page. It's getting in the way of constructive commentary on the actual editing of the page. If there are individual proposals for renaming / merging / moving work they should be brought up as action proposals, not just talked around forever on huge threads. Chris Cunningham 12:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this Talk page is being archived a little too freqeuntly. If explanations of changes keep getting filed away, the same debates will keep recurring, IMO. Gronky 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like how the discussion disappears either. I think any archiver should take the time to provide a summary of the discussion first. Chris Pickett 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

List of games

This is pretty minor, but who chose the games included as "Prominent examples of open source games"? Battle for Wesnoth certainly makes sense, but the other two don't seem like very good examples, as they're interest is too far removed from the mainstream gaming interest, and Ur-Quan Masters doesn't seem that prominent at all. Instead, I'd consider games such as Nexuiz, Vega Strike, PlaneShift, Glest, FlightGear, Sauerbraten (game), Warzone 2100, or even Frets On Fire or StepMania just to name a few (Sauerbraten and PlaneShift's content might not be under a free license, so I'm not sure if they'd qualify). michaelb ^{Talk to this user} 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It was me. I guess you haven't really heard of NetHack or Star Control 2 (a.k.a. The Ur-Quan Masters). I see where you might be coming from: I actually haven't heard of any of the games you've listed. NetHack and UQM (i.e. Star Control 2) do feature in published best-game-ever articles that aren't just on some guy's blog (for example, NetHack at Salon.com, Star Control 2 at Gamespot). Just Google them, or read the actual Wikipedia articles, you'll see what I mean. NetHack has been developed as open source for 20+ years and was the inspiration for the "mainstream" Diablo, whereas Star Control 2 was a "mainstream" success in 1992 that got open-sourced and reborn as UQM some 10 years later. Actually, if I was going to claim one of those three games as less well-known than the others, it would be Battle for Wesnoth. Chris Pickett 08:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have actually played both games mentioned and enjoyed them immensely, although I prefer the original rogue and moria (even when I'm assaulted by that blasted canine ;). Farmer Maggot should really teach that dog some manners!) over nethack. Nonetheless, it does not fit the tone of the article. The article is not written for computer nerds like us. The people who would be interested in those games (NetHack and UQM, that is) probably already know what Linux is. Star Control 2 is a prominent classic game. However, in neighboring subsections under the "Distribution" header, it talks about modern Desktop Environments, modern distros, and modern desktop applications (e.g. "desktop publishing"), not about classic equivalents. The games I suggested are all fairly modern in both play-style and graphics. If you don't think they are popular enough, see this poll of Linux gamers ( http://www.linux-gamers.net/modules/xoopspoll/pollresults.php?poll_id=71 ) in which Nexuiz came in first, even over popular closed-source games. Seriously, there's been enough "best-games-ever" to devote an entire article to (there might very well be one), and enough Linux ports and remakes of classic games to write a book about (just pick a classic game and prepend "g" to the title--or spell it with k or x--and that's probably the name of a Linux remake). Be honest: did you first read this article with the mindset of improving it, or to learn about this strange computer-thingie called Linux that's sort of like Windows or Mac? Right. Thought so ;). It seems the rest of the article was written to 1) define Linux terms (e.g. distro, package), 2) give Linux history, 3) demonstrate ways in which Linux is a viable OS. To me, it still seems like it would be most congruous to change the list of games to list games that compete with modern games. I hope I was clear. Cheers! michaelb ^{Talk to this user} 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not just expand the section to talk about classic gaming under Linux, modern open source developments, and commercial ports/cedega stuff? Then you can list everybody. If the section gets too big, create a Linux Gaming article and write a summary of that in this one. Then it's a natural growth process, and everybody's happy. Chris Pickett 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Reordering, line breaks in refs

I've reformatted the article to use the previous layout. I just see it as more logical, and easier to work from. In the process I merged the intro "Linux is used from iPods to Crays" thing into the "Linux is used from iPaqs to Z9s" thing, and removed a duplicate section on the trademark that I think user:AdrianTM added because the previous section appeared to have vanished (it was hidden much further down the article).

I've also removed the line breaks in the first few refs again. This article has over twenty such templates in it. It might make individual refs less readable in the edit view, but it makes the body of text much more compact and thus easier to scroll through. I'd ask for further discussion before this is changes, and if it's going to be changed back it should be applied to all refs, not just the first few. Chris Cunningham 10:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

IPA

The IPA system means very little to me; is it pronounced "line-ux" or "lin-ux" or even, "lin-oox?

Thanks 89.213.8.130 13:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

AdrianTM, He was just asking a question don't be so mean. Anyway, it's pronounced "lin-ux" also, there is a link in the article (to here [1]) that shows how it's pronounced. Mike92591 20:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Sorry! Removed my comment, I was afraid that that will be the prelude to a revert war similar to what I've seen on GNU page about pronunciation. -- AdrianTM 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And AdrianTM, get a job you vindictive layabout. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.163.139.174 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

He said he was sorry. Mike92591 23:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore. -- AdrianTM 01:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mascot

But is Tux the penguin mascot of the operating system? Or just the kernel? 80.233.255.7 10:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

YAWN. The distinction is irrelevant. Tux is the mascot of "Linux", however "Linux" is defined. Chris Cunningham 11:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The distinction is not irrelevant. Linux is a kernel and Tux is its mascot. --MarSch 13:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The mascot is for both and all to do with Linux. Please don't turn this into yet another silly argument about naming. Tux is the mascot of 'Linux' be it the kernel or the OS.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on this a little, please? How is what you're saying different from saying that the penguin is the mascot of a washing powder? 80.233.255.7 15:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no Linux OS and it doesn't have a mascot. --MarSch 15:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, it has turned into another one of those stupid 'Linux isn't an OS' arguments again! For god's sake people! Linux is the name given to a set of Unix like OS's that use the Linux kernel. The mascot is the mascot for this and the kernel... Is it that hard to comprehend? I am rather sick of arguing over the definition of 'Linux'. We have argued about it for around 90% of the history of this talk page. Enough is enough!-Localzuk^(talk) 15:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There's easy way around it: don't comment back.

Seriously, though, your definition is somewhat different than that in the article. Those who prefer to call the system GNU/Linux would say that "the mascot of the system is a gnu but, since it uses the Linux kernel, let's give credit to Linux guys as well and paint Tux the penguin alongside our mascot." 80.233.255.7 22:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How is my definition different? I almost copied the line from the intro for my definition of Linux... And stop with the GNU stuff! We have discussed this to death, please just drop it - we have a good compromise as it stands on the naming. The tux mascot is used worldwide to depict a 'Linux OS'. For example, if you get hold of a copy of Unreal Tournament 2004 you will spot the tux image on the back - which is to indicate that the game will play in a Linux OS. Tux is the mascot of 'Linux' as in 'The OS and the kernel'. However, the Tux article says it is the mascot of the kernel - but I would argue that is no longer the case as it has expanded to more than just the kernel via public use (like the name Linux being used generally as well as specifcally).-Localzuk^(talk) 23:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when the best way to decide on a controversial issue is to say "this has been discussed to death, just drop it"? "GNU stuff" is very much relevant. Saying it isn't is ignorance. But you're right, a compromise was reached (on several issues, in fact). It was never implemented, and the discussion was quickly archived away from view as "flame wars, part x".

Generally I think of a mascot as something that is accepted by a group of people to associate themselves with. The only project that Tux has been officially accepted for as a mascot is the Linux kernel. Off the record, Tux the penguin certainly isn't considered to be a mascot of an operating system by people who prefer to think of their OSs as GNU variants with a Linux kernel. 80.233.255.7 00:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The compromise, IIRC was to include the explanation that GNU/Linux was another name given to this OS? Or am I mistaken? Also, the controversy is being created by a very vocal minority - without much ground to support it. Just because you shout loudest doesn't mean you are right...

Also, regardless of what you define 'mascot' as, tux is used as a general mascot for Linux the OS as well as the kernel.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about Chris Pickett's suggested outcome.[2] It really seemed as if some sort of agreement started taking shape.

By the way, don't take this personally, but I find your comment rather amusing. Apart from the load of FUD it contains, I guess I don't have to tell you that the argument about minority "has been discussed to death" and that you should "just drop it". I don't think anyone has any doubt on which side is the minority and which is the majority, even those who don't know anything about the controversy. 80.233.255.7 22:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove mention of GNU/Linux from the summary

I think this discussion is a proof that the current intro doesn't work, I think "GNU/Linux" from the introduction is making people to lose focus as we see here. The article is about operating systems based on Linux kernel. -- AdrianTM 03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If this says anything about the intro it's that your opinion does not have unanimous backing. The article is about operating systems that are more GNU than they are Linux. The mascot issue is seperate and I'm not sure what the right thing to do is. Gronky 12:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! See, I say, and the introduction says too that the article is about "operating systems based on Linux kernel" you say that's "about operating systems that are more GNU than they are Linux". I think it's a grave confusion here because of minority view POV pushing. I removed that from intro. -- AdrianTM 13:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That these OSs are more GNU than they are Linux kernel is fact. So the fact that GNU is a core part should be mentioned with equal or greater prominence than the fact that Linux kernel is a core part. Asking for different is asking for Wikipedia to publish inaccurate information. No mascot debate changes this. Gronky 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Adrian, you posted this suggestion as a possible outcome a while ago. As you can see, people (including yourself) weren't happy with it. 80.233.255.7 15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What I remember from the many, many hours of debate was that we kept going round and round in circles because some editors refused to listen to the policies of the site - particularly the naming ones. Yes, Linux the OS contains some GNU stuff but that is immaterial - the fact still remains that 99% of the world refers to the OS as Linux. Why should our article on that OS be any different from the rest of the world? Why should we give undue weight to a name that is only used by a minority? We have an article regarding the debate, we have a brief mention of that debate in this article and also point out that sometimes the OS has been called 'GNU/Linux'. As we pointed out before, GNU/Linux is by far the minority name for the OS...-Localzuk^(talk) 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the main thing that keeps the debate going in circles is that people are confusing two seperate issues. Issue #1 is over what title the article should have and what it should say regarding what name(s) are used for the OS. Issue #2 is how to describe the OS. In the threads of the last month I've repeatedly stated that the OS that is the topic of this article is more GNU than it is Linux kernel, so GNU should get equal or more prominent mention than Linux kernel. I'm talking about issue #2, but everyone who replies to me changes the topic to issue #1 by saying "only a minority call it GNU/Linux" etc. - which is neither here nor there when talking about issue #2. Issue #2 is hard to discuss because many people's thinking is clouded by strong feelings either way about issue #1. The current intro is not very informative about what the OS is, why it exists, or where it came from. I'm not very happy with the current intro, but at least it has the small concession that GNU is not completely hidden, so readers have a starting point from where they can learn about the OS. Gronky 18:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But that is the point. The article is about OS's based around the Linux kernel and not GNU. I think maybe we need a seperate GNU/Linux article for the specifics surrounding 'Gnu/Linux' to be discussed.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If starting points are important, lets open with a mention the eight years of work the GNU project put into making this OS exist before Linus started his kernel. But no matter which project you take as the starting point, the end result is more GNU than Linux kernel. This is an article about GNU. Gronky 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to forget to mention that it's "Linux distributions" not "GNU distributions" (it's Red Hat Linux not Red Hat GNU) BTW, I started to think that "Linux" article should be merged into Linux distributions which is a more appropriate name since there's no "Linux" per se (beside the kernel). -- AdrianTM 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Red Hat choose the name for marketing reasons. Wikipedia aims at accuracy. When I talk about it, I say "Red Hat's GNU+Linux distro", because that's what it is. Gronky 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Versions

Should the different versions of Linux be listed\linked to from here? --24.172.195.239 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The article links to Linux distributions, from which the list of Linux distributions is linked. Or do you mean Linux kernel versions? 80.233.255.7 15:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>This confusion is unbearable, we must remove all mentions of "Linux" from the page or put them down at the bottom</sarcasm> Hehe, hope y'all can take a joke. Gronky 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)