Talk:Linux/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Intro change

I would like to change the first sentence from,

Linux is a computer operating system and its kernel.

To,

Linux is a computer kernel, though it is commonly used to refer to a family of operating systems.

I feel this is superior for the following reasons:

• Linux is foremost a kernel, so this makes nit pickers (like myself) happy.
• If people are told "Linux is an operating system" they might next think "Okay, where can I get the Linux operating system?" This new wording makes sure they realize that there is not actually a "Linux operating system" really want a distribution in the "Linux family".
• Currently, the third paragraph has to contradict what the first sentence says. This new wording doesn't, and the third paragraph can be reduced to a footnote.

This may be contentious... I checked the Talk page for similar discussion, but this exact point doesn't seem to be addressed. Comments? —Sean κ. ⇔ 04:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Family of OSes is also misleading in this context, "a complete OS" is more accurate (when describing the distinction between linux the kernel and gnu/linux the OS).

The intro must be made more accessible to the lay reader, and this proposal is a step in the right direction. I rearranged the intro to make it slightly friendlier to the lay reader, and it has ben reverted. Please imagine that someone who barely knows what at OS is (ie the average windows user) has been directed to this article. Having a second paragraph about kernels and GNU will send them running away screaming. -- Tarquin 19:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right now the intro reads:

The term Linux strictly refers to the Linux kernel, but is commonly used to describe entire Unix-like operating systems (also known as GNU/Linux) that are based on the Linux kernel combined with libraries and tools from the GNU project. Linux distributions often bundle large quantities of software with the core system.

I feel this violates NPOV, since many people don't consider Linux to refer strictly to the Linux kernel, and instead to both the Linux kernel and the operating system run under it (including GNU userland) equally. This could be far worse, but I think it needs improved wording to take this into account—Trevor Caira 15:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Litigation history

There shouldn't be a litigation history any longer as there is a change of attitude SCO has now in her battling. The claims SCO has raised seemed to have been dropped. I deleted the litigation section as it wasn't really clear anyways. Since SCO couldn't win anything in the courts, the battle could be said have nothing really to do with Linux.

--User [[User::Jagginess|Jagginess]]

LOL, are you a shill for SCO? They are still trying to claim a Linux connection (if for no other reason than to keep the Redhat lawsuit stayed pending resolution of the SCO vs IBM lawsuit). zen master T 21:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Microsoft/DOJ lawsuit has died down, why not erase that from our collective memory too? We don't simply erase mention of notable events. Rhobite 21:28, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

There is a need to include information about the Linux mark: http://www.linuxmark.org/ and the history of how this mark was won after someone tried to steal it, and how and why this mark is managed. I feel this is important in connection with this page, as it illuminates other free software trademark discussions and controversies. Should this go under Litigation history, or does it justify a seperate subsection under Linux history  ? [copsewood 18 Jun 2005]

Intro, again

I rearranged the intro to make it slightly friendlier to the lay reader, and it has ben reverted. Please imagine that someone who barely knows what at OS is (ie the average windows user) has been directed to this article. Having a second paragraph about kernels and GNU will send them running away screaming. You're not doing yourself any favours here. Please reconsider. -- Tarquin 19:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Market share

It says: Its market share for desktops is rapidly growing. According to market research company IDC, 25% of servers and 2.8% of desktop computers were already running Linux in 2002...

Any references??

192.38.79.233 09:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

A Google for it got one newer result from 2004(similar stories are on e-week, etc.): http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5492399.html Sepht

Linux and Virus

I'd personally like to have some facts about how computer viruses are effective against Linux. From what I've heard, Linux doesn't need Anti Virus software, since it's such a powerful and well written OS, that viruses doesn't affect it? Well anyway, a Linux vs Virus section would be nice in this article. EliasAlucard|Talk 22:35, 28 May, 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not Linux is well written has little bearing on its susceptibility to viruses. The fact that users typically run under less priveleged accounts, Linux's small installed base, and Linux typically being used as a server rather than a desktop, are what most affect its reputation as being immune to viruses.

However, Linux is far from secure. While it has only had a few viruses written for it, there have been a large number of exploits published, both local and remote.

Darrien 21:54, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

All right. I'm no expert on this, and that's also why I'd like a Linux vs Virus section. Partially, to learn more about it, and of course, I think it's important facts that people should know.

EliasAlucard|Talk 11:41, 29 May, 2005 (UTC)

It's a tough subject, given the fact that people on both sides are very passionate about it. However no matter what, there are two absolute truths about Linux and viruses:

Computers running Linux do not get viruses.

The number one reason for this is the small install base which could act as potential infected hosts.

As far as we know, a cell phone is just as susceptible to viruses as my Linux machine. No one writes cell phone viruses, but that doesn't mean that there might be some loophole no one has ever thought of.

Also, you have to look at users. Windows can easily be made more secure than a poorly configured Linux box. However, if you look at the average Windows user, it's unlikely they'll know what a firewall does, while the average Linux user probably edits their iptables by hand (or maybe not...). —Sean κ. + 17:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that the number one reason Linux does not get viruses is becase of a small installed base. Two counter examples are the Witty worm and the Apache web server. There was a population of a mere 12,000 hosts vulnerable to the Witty worm, and yet the worm throve. OTOH, the Apache web server is primarily hosted on Unix/Linux and yet is far less vulnerable to attacks, and attacked far less, than Microsoft's IIS. This suggests that the virus writers go for 'the easy pickings', not necessarly for the largest installed base.

I don't think that what I said applies in general, only to the current install base of desktop Linux boxes. If I recall, Witty was targeted at the US Millitary (or whoever primarily used the faulty security software), and a number of important computers chosen as seeds. —Sean κ. + 21:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. There were _only_ 12,000 hosts out there, yet somebody had the motivation to attack those machines with a worm. In the last 6 month's alone there have been more than 1,000 new viruses and worms written. Surely there are people motivated to attack the far more than 12,000 Linux hosts out there. Yet there are practically no viruses. There are many many Cisco routers and firewalls out there protecting many valuable assets, yet we hear of no viruses. There are many many Unix hosts out there with valuable information. We hear of no viruses. There are many OS X hosts out there. No viruses. I'm not saying these systems can't be cracked, I'm saying that it's easier to crack a Windows box. So much easier that it seems not worth writing viruses for anything else.

Desktop share is immaterial. People don't write viruses to attack desktops, they write viruses to attack computers. Some clearly write viruses to attack small numbers of computers, presumably because they protect something valuable. Malware writers targeting small numbers of computers have had success, wild success. There is a large amount of value, and a large number of computers, for which there is little malware. To conclude that their smaller installed base is what is protecting these computers seems questionable. What these computers have in common is that they don't run MS Windows. To me it seems a more reasonable conclusion would be that these computers are harder to attack than computers running Windows. Many of the computers that are not attacked are desktops, so desktop-ness does not seem to play into it. Maybe the new attacks are variants of old attacks, which are mostly attacks on Windows. That might explain why Windows is attacked most frequently, but not why MS can't fix Windows so attacks don't succeed. --kop 18:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further, there are quite a large number of Linux systems out there. It's been reported that Linux has a larger share of the desktop computer market than Macs do.

"IDC will soon release 2003 software market data which is expected to show Linux pulling ahead of Apple..." how can you cite an opinion as being a fact? Find something more concrete to back up your claims or label them as opinions.

Surely that makes for enough computers that there's profit, or whatever, in attacking them. One would think that because the Linux code is availabe for anyone to read, and discover vulnerablities in, that this would make Linux a more inviting target than other systems but this appears not to be the case.

Why would anyone need to write a virus targeting Linux when there are so many local and remote root exploits?

Linux has (per previous link) a 3.2% share of the desktop,

Wrong, see above.

and around 15% share of all servers.

The link you provided does not say that Linux has a 15% share of all servers. It said that 15% of *new* servers sold in 2003 were running Linux. That is nowhere near 15% of all servers as you claim.

Suppose there were _only_ 100 Windows viruses, that caused problems. There should be at least 3 troublesome Linux viruses. There are none.

--kop 18:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you take the time to read any articles that you intend to present as fact.

Darrien 20:57, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

First, I don't really trust the first link you gave, but I can assume that Linux has around 3% market share. If I were writing a virus for a desktop computer, would I bother writing it for Linux? I really doubt it. If I wanted to write 100? Still, probably not.

Also, the small install base is just the biggest reason there are no viruses. The fact that most Linux users are savvy also makes it difficult to write an effective virus. Why, what do you think is the most important reason there are no Linux viruses? —Sean κ. + 21:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that a significant number of people see Microsoft and Windows as being 'the enemy'. Who (other than Microsoft) sees Linux users as being the bad guys? I admit that, as aforementioned, virus writers target computers, regardless of configuration (or even OS if they want to crack a specific system). However, I suspect a large number of viruses (possibly a majority) are written because the author has a dislike for the target operating system. IMHO, lots of people dislike Windows, so they write viruses for it; hardly anyone hates Linux, so there are hardly any Linux viruses. Of course, this simplification doesn't account for all viruses. Sticksoft 21:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"Linux doesn't have or need antivirus software. Those programs are to filescan windows filesystems and in particular, email servers. When you build a boat without holes, you don't need duct tape to keep it afloat." [1] I'm not saying that was pure fact, but I'd like to know what he's talking about?

EliasAlucard|Talk 20:25, 03 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Look, you can try and build the safest car in the world, but people will still die in it. If you build the safest airplane in the world, you're still going to put a blackbox in it. And I'll bet that boat without holes has lifevests. No operating system is "without holes", that's just ridiculous. It isn't a matter of preference, it's a matter of logic. Everything we create has flaws, ergo Linux has flaws.

That said, the statement, "Linux doesn't have or need antivirus software" is true in practice, but it isn't really relevant to the security of Linux. My cell phone also doesn't have antivirus software, but I assure you that if everyone started storing their credit card number in their cell phone, then that would change very quickly. —Sean κ. + 20:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You got a good point there. I can't argue about that. But it's stuff like this I think should be explained in the article, so people who hear biased stuff about Linux (both positive and negative) can get it straightened out here.

EliasAlucard|Talk 03:25, 04 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

sohani 05:42, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

What a bout windows imitators? Is there any possibility to get the same virus problem in windows imitators as windows?

Public administarion

Hello. What do you think about a section ==Linux in public administration== where we deal with the local and 'federal' governements that have switched to Linux, given money for Linux develepoment, etc. ? es.wikipedia has already some information http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#El_software_libre_en_la_administraci.C3.B3n_p.C3.BAblica --Youssef 19:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I honestly can't see how it would benefit the article in any way. Would anyone care if a government switched from using ACME brand hammers to non-ACME brand hammers?

Confusing Introduction

I found the introduction too esoteric. I don't know that much about computers and I had to click on several of the links to understand. That's fine later on in the text, but it would be nice if someone could add a few words of explanation after some of the terms.

I agree. Linux zealots don't allow me to change it. -- Taku 05:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm about as far as it gets from a Linux zealot. My reason for reverting was because the new intro does nothing except add that Linux is "as developed as other modern operating systems", an instance of POV. I agree that the current intro is too complicated, it should definitely be simplified. Rhobite 06:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me if linux zealots mind you. It was somehow meant to be funny, as they are infamous :) Anyway, Is the new version POV? The new one also says you can see and change source code, which is obvious, but we have to say the obvious. -- Taku 06:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

---

I just reverted the intro paragraph to the version last added by Stevenj, because the other version had serious spelling, grammatical, and POV issues. At least this version is fairly clear, and gives the (possibly unfamiliar) reader a good indication of what the article is about, with an economical use of words. —Ryanaxp 21:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

It was meant to be draft; so I was careless about spelling. If you want to see the new version is shortened, I can try. The current version is apparently arcane for those unfamiliar with terms like open source and free software. ALso, I don't know how the new version is POV. -- Taku 22:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

In the future, please remember that highly-visible articles such as this one are not drafts, they are on the web and they are read by thousands of people. Please take the time to spellcheck your contributions. I still don't see how your version is better or more understandable than the previous one. I rephrased the sentence about Linux's open source status, and I removed the "vindicated" sentence. It's awkward and it still expresses the opinion that Linux is "as functional and robust as ones developed by a big software vendor." That statement certainly isn't true in all cases. Rhobite 22:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

About editing style, I think it is more matter of personal preference. Some people really mind misspelling or grammatical errors at any moment, while some prefer to wait fixing until some final version emerges. Since now I know your preference, I can try to be more careful. But I am still going to make some mistake however I am careful, so you are certainly welcome to fix anything; it's just spelling or grammatical problems cannot be bases for the removal of new edits.

Anyhow, my intent is still to fix the shortcoming of the old version. As the above, saying Linux is open source or free software tells very little. And I thought and still think that saying how Linux is unique (that is how it differs from others) helps. As for the maturity, I agree that it sounds POV; I am still trying to express this in NPOV manner. Certainly, there is why some companies are trying to switch to Linux, and, I think, this is very important to note; something has to be mentioned in the intro. Anyway, based on the discussion, I will try how we can achive this. -- Taku 23:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

About my last edit. I think the first and second sentences in the intro are ok. The third one probably can use more edit; in it, I simply spelled out why Linux is important as an example of open source development. Free software isn't new; but Linux has also shown that having many eyebrows can help, contradicting the traditional view, and it is noteworthy in my opinion. We can either remove it or put it in more concise manner. Since I am going out now, I leave this manner to others. I will later try if I can or want. -- Taku 23:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Linux is not unique, it is not the only widely-used open source OS. Others include FreeBSD and OpenBSD. I took out the word "unique". I removed "others such as" because it's an awkward phrase. The phrase "It is unique in that" is also awkward, please rephrase it if you insist on replacing it. Rhobite 00:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

---

Some comment about wording. I still cannot see why people stick to the phrase "it is among the most famous example of ..." While it is true, it is not concise, and it is awkward to introduce things as an example. Take, for example, "George W. Bush is among the most famous example of neoconservative US presidents." The intro should tell what is Linux and how it is significant. We have to say this how, not that Linux is significant or famous example or such, which tells essentially none. -- Taku 22:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think the intro has to include the following points, (all of which are too obvious to us):

• Linux is an operating system.
• It is modern; it supports OS concepts like threading, virtual machine and such.
• it is free software.
• Its development model differs from traditional one, commercial or not, in two ways: (1) single person has the ultimate responsibility (that is, Linus) and (2) The Cathedral and the Bazaar idea; having more programmers help.

So it is really the matter of wording. It is probably impossible to spell the above out, but we can try. -- Taku 23:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't sound too bad, but may I ask what's wrong with the current intro? I don't find anything wrong it.

EliasAlucard|Talk 01:20, 19 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I tried to spell out why we need to revise it in the above post (22:57, Jun 18, 2005). If my post didn't make sense for whatever reason, please just let me know -- Taku 02:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

---

Ok, how about this to replace the first 2 paragraphs.

Linux is a computer kernel, that part of a computer's software that mediates the sharing of the computer's hardware between the programs that run on the computer. Historically a greater or lesser amount of other software, programs which call upon the kernel in their performance of tasks, has been distributed alongside kernels in collections termed operating systems, or OSs. The Linux kernel is no different; Linux is also an operating system comprised of the Linux kernel and the software bundled with it.

Linux, both the kernel and the OS, is one of the most famous examples of free software and of open source development. Linux's source code, the program text that is written and read by programmers, is available to the public. Anyone can freely use, modify, and redistribute it, producing their own version of Linux. Linux is continuously modified, and many modifications are merged back into the original. This process, facilited by the Internet, has resulted in the production of an operating system on par with other modern operating systems.

The over 300 Linux distributions are the various collections of Linux kernel and other programs. These Unix-like operating systems often contain large numbers of programs, many either GNU project programs or programs built upon and with the GNU project's programming tools and libraries. Hence some prefer to term the OS GNU/Linux.

--kop 1 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

Well, I am for improving the intro. -- Taku July 1, 2005 03:01 (UTC)

Nice effort Kop, but the above three paragraphs don't represent an improvement in my opinion. The current introduction in the article is quite good, so the best way to go about this would be to make small modifications to it. But not too many - it would be a mistake to baloon the introduction into a primer on operating systems. --Yath 1 July 2005 06:06 (UTC)

Thanks. The critisim was that the terms needed explaination in the article text, that too many links needed to be clicked on to parse the sentences. This is the result. I would not want to drop any of the terms (kernel, OS, distribution, free software/open source, etc.) from the introduction and came up with the briefest explainations I could. If explaination is not needed then what is the problem that we're trying to solve? (I was kind of proud of my self at arriving at one sentence explainations for kernel and OS. Free Software/Open Source took more verbage. Oh well.) --kop 2 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)

I agree with Kop. Yath, I think I can see your point but I still there is a way to improve the intro; we are just looking for how. The complication in writing the intro arises because in my opinion Linux represents and are the products of many geeky concepts, which we can't expect ordinary people are aware. I tried to improve it in vain. For a start, it is very difficult to put everything about Linux in a couple of sentences, from what is Linux (it's a piece of software) to how it is developed (saying it's free software tells almost none because we often explain free software by giving Linux is an example. Thus, saying Linux is an example of something is logically problematic.) In any case, I started to think we might be better off if we write an intro section with a couple of paragraphs that give a brief summary of everything about Linux without going to details. (I am basing this section on Kop's draft.) Since the article is protected, I am using this page instead. Hope you can join the page. -- Taku July 3, 2005 01:20 (UTC)

Take another look, it's just been unprotected. --cesarb 3 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)

Good. I will just make my edit on the article directly. -- Taku July 3, 2005 03:02 (UTC)

Ken Thompson interview quote

I think that quote is quite interesting and fits into the article. It does not, however, belong into the intro. I suggest a separate section "Opinions on the Linux kernel". Add some choice quotes by Tanenbaum and de Raadt and we have a complete (though not perfectly balanced) new section. Rl 13:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To the anon who is contributing the quote: I would be inclined to agree with your views, but the way you are approaching this is not appropriate in Wikipedia. Rl has a point that your edits do not belong in the intro, and you have not commented on this. Until you do, it is unlikely your changes will be kept. Further, being rude is not a good way to make contributions. —Sean κ. + 16:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User has been notified on his talk page to be civil when making an edit. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

User has been given his final warning on his talk page. We don't have time for trolling, and I have made that clear. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

He's not even using the -right- insulting terms, dammit! its penguin-shagger :pp

I can't see a reason for he's doing to the intro. The Thompson interview quote, however, is more suited to the article. --Kiand 16:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well thanks to his reckless actions no one will ever get to hear what he has to say. —Sean κ. + 17:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too bad, too. I think he actually may have had a valid viewpoint, but he violated policy. Oh well. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the anon's comments about Ken Thompson: while Thompson is a famous computer scientist and probably very brilliant, I believe he did not have much of a hand in turning the original UNIX into the thing it became in the 1980's. Unless there's more evidence that Thompson has some level of expertise in kernel design, I doubt he's a superior source of 'authority' than, say, Theo de Raadt. Plus, most of the criticisms of the Linux kernel architecture can be said of the micro vs monolithic kernel debate, which is a story for another day - rernst 17:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You must be kidding. Thompson is more than qualified to weigh in on kernel design. Of course, a) he made his comment half a decade ago and b) the fact that some of the Linux kernel code is and/or looks pretty awful is not a secret. But a quote by the Ken Thompson is certainly noteworthy. I'd be in favor of putting the quote into Linux kernel. It is about the kernel rather than a complete OS anyway. Oh, and as I said before, I am all for adding quotes from de Raadt, Tanenbaum and other qualified folks as well. Rl 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's an issue. The problem we were having was the way that he (the troll) was repeatedly inserting material and ignoring requests to use the talk page. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I noticed that. But we can still use the material, no? Rl 18:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! I'm just not sure whereabouts to put it, but it could certainly be used. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I would consider including it if he had said something similar recently —Sean κ. + 21:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The quote is interesting because it is fairly old. As a comment on Linux kernel stability I don't think it's worth much. It is more about the perception of Linux at the time. In other words: If people like Thompson would not say something like that again that would make the early quote more noteworthy. Rl 07:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The information that it's a decade old is news to me.... if that comment/quote is included, such should probably be specified. - rernst 13:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not "a decade" old, someone used "half a decade" to make it sound too old, because the interview was in 1999. But other qualified people have said similar things all along.

Just this week (June 21, 2005) Matt Dillon said a similar thing about Linux kernel, although Dillon said it in a way to be as little controvertial as possible. Although Dillon is not Ken Thompson, I think in all fairness he is well qualified on the subject. He was one one of FreeBSD's best kernel hackers for a long time before starting his own project; and I believe he has also contributed to the Linux kernel in the past, before becoming a FreeBSD kernel hacker. So it is not "an old perception" about the Linux kernel. What Thompson said continues to be true, and perhaps it is even more severe than when he made his comment, because the Linux kernel development methodology was never changed. Therefore, it makes sense that today it is even more of a mess than it was 5 years ago. At any rate, I dont think Dillon's comment can be ignored to brushed off as "oh, who is he?" The problem with Linux community is that it is full of pathetic little Fanboys.

Anon: as someone who used Linux for a while, and now no longer does, I think I can say that I know something about the subject but am not a "fanboy". I also think you may have a point, and I might want to discuss this. However, you still seem to be completely unaware that we are people, and people do not take well to insults. As long as you act immature, we will continue reverting you and banning you until you go away or stop acting like a child. Please think about it. —Sean κ. + 20:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's just a little nitpick, but shouldn't the article have {{vprotected}} instead of {{protected}}? --Yath 03:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, because the anon is not vandalizing the page. This a content dispute.

Darrien 10:43, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to protect the page; the spiteful insistence that this quote go in the intro and the abusive dismissal of other Wikipedians was clearly too disruptive to tolerate. Regarding the content issue, I agree that there is a place for quotes (pro and con) by prominent computer scientists on Linux (the OS and the kernel). Please remember, however, that quotes specific to the kernel per se belong on the Linux kernel page, not here. —Steven G. Johnson 19:34, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Washing Powder

We have a linux fan who keeps removing the link to the Washing Powder. Stop it, its immature and smacks of blatant blind devotion to a cause that makes you unable to accept that something else might have the same name and just as much right to a dab header. --Kiand 12:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mac OS not MacOS

When you Linux people are done with discussing, please don't forget to correct the spelling of "MacOS" to "Mac OS". Thank you.

POV terms

I feel that "Many distributions are at least as easy to install as a comparable version of Windows." is someone's POV. The question is: who's POV is it? We need to source that! Also, what does "Many distributions contain much more software than Windows, so per package they are also much easier to install." mean? That is not clear. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 02:35 (UTC)

I think in general the article lacks a NPOV. For example:

"Microsoft-sponsored studies such as those by IDC have argued that Linux had a higher total cost of ownership (TCO) than Windows. However, Relevantive, the renowned Berlin-based organization specializing in consulting companies on the usability of software and Web services, concluded that the usability of Linux for a set of desktop-related tasks is 'equal to Windows XP.'"

This smacks of pro-linux anti-microsoft. I think its innapropiate to start this sentence with "microsoft-sponsored" because it tries to discredit the report even before introducing it. Then, in the next sentence, even before making the point, the word 'renowned' is used of the people who came up with the pro-Linux study. So basically, the hidden message I get from this language is anyone who says Linux is bad is bad. 66.75.49.213

Yes, there's a lot of subjective and POV statements regarding "user friendliness", as well as various unsourced claims regarding prevalence. It reads like a large Linux advocacy article. Just some examples:

• "This stereotype has been dispelled in recent years by the increased user-friendliness and broad adoption of many Linux distributions. "
• "Linux is also often used in embedded systems" (no source, and the examples are of pervasive computing, not embedded)
• "Linux is rapidly gaining popularity as a desktop operating system. " (unsourced)
• "Additionally proprietary software for other operating systems may be run through compatibility layers, such as Wine" (doesn't mention problems with Wine--this is like a "counter argument" section)
• "Because of reluctance to change and the fact that many computers come with Windows pre-installed, there has been initially a slow adoption of new desktop operating systems. " (speculation)
• "Linux is rapidly gaining popularity as a desktop operating system as it is increasingly used in schools and workplaces and more people become familiar with it." (unsourced)
• "Many distributions are at least as easy to install as a comparable version of Windows"

And there's also the issue of the cost estimates of developing Linux. Those aren't encyclopedic and the (at least he first one) is based on arm chair calculations from a single non-scientist, it's not actually a scientific study.

I think this article is hopeless.

Nathan J. Yoder 18:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Confused.

Why is this locked? I can see no explanation from an admin on the talk page! - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 02:37 (UTC)

There was an anon who insisted on putting a non-flattering quote in the intro section who was using anonymous proxies (from the protection log: "anon using open proxies to evade 3RR block"). Probably a good idea to try unprotecting now. --W(t) 29 June 2005 02:59 (UTC)

It's the Ken Thompson interview quote (see above section). The incident straddles the line between "content dispute" and vandalism IMHO. --Yath 29 June 2005 07:52 (UTC)

Washing Powder

Let's remove link to washing powder from the article head. It looks like advertisement and has nothing important to Linux. There is already linuk to washing powder from Linux (disambiguation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conan (talk • contribs) 11:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Eh. No.

Leave it - theres not enough to justify using the disambig page, and you've been trying to remove this for ages. Its another product with the exact same name - it has just as much justification to being linked. --Kiand 11:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

What justification it has? Conan 12:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Existing, having the same name, being a real commercial product. Oh, and annoying utter fanbois. Kiand 03:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

In other words, your best reason is your desire to be an annoyance. While not among your target demographics, I suspect you are only marginally successful. Rl 07:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you skip over the part where Kiand said "Existing, having the same name, being a real commercial product"?

Darrien 08:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

No, but I notice that objects with similar attributes are simply included by reference to a dab page in other articles. I don't intend to edit the text in question, and I don't really care about it, either, but I don't appreciate comments suggesting that annoying other editors is a worthy goal. Rl 08:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are only created when too many links would need to be included at the start of an article. When there are only one or two, direct links to the articles in question in used.

Darrien 09:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia doesn't need Linux washing powder, because Wikipedia is not a product reference or advertisements agency. Conan

OK, so get rid of the pages for SuSE Linux, Mandriva Linux, Red Hat Linux, Yellow Dog Linux, TurboLinux, and all other commercial Linux distros. They're all "products" and their pages could be seen as advertisements. Kiand 14:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Linux (washing powder) may not be essential, but there are many articles like that, say Coca-Cola with Lime or Tender Crisp Bacon Cheddar Ranch. The washing powder article is no problem. Rl 14:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, Let's waste Wikipedia with all existing brands and products! Conan

Heh, you must be new here. Try and go to VfD to get an article about an existing brand or product deleted. It's been tried. Rl 15:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

"Desktop" Linux sucks

It's true, it's true JacksonBrown 03:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Somebody will come along to delete you this soon. --67.172.99.160 00:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Installation on an existing platform - Cygwin

This section included A Linux boot loader will boot the Linux system when the PC is restarted and the user chooses to boot Linux. Similar approaches include Cygwin and coLinux. I removed the mention of Cygwin since it isn't a method for installing or running Linux at all. —PrologFan {Talk} 22:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

External links cleanup

Removed:

• http://www.gnu.org GNU

Not a whole lot of relevant info there. GNU links are already all over the article.

• Kernel.org The Official Website of Linux Kernel. The source code of the Linux kernel can be downloaded from here.

Very little information and pretty irrelevant considering the (goofy imo) focus of this particular article. It's linked from Linux kernel, which is linked here more than once.

• The Linux Year Review of Linux in year 2004.

I was removing this because it only had a little bit of very focused information that could easily be added to an article if desired, but looking at it now, it's being removed because it asks for you to register.

• Linux User Groups Wikicity
• Linux Wikicity, a nascent open-source wiki devoted to Linux

Sorry, these are a little too nascent. It's hard for me to imagine either of these ever being anywhere near as informative as some of the other links. I question the point of their existence at all - looks like a waste of time.

¦ Reisio 13:44, 2005 July 24 (UTC)

Cloning Windows?

What would happen if somebody cloned Microsoft Windows as closely as possible (without violating copyright) into a Linux distribution? >:-) Probably a whole bunch of lawsuits... --67.172.99.160 01:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt there'd be lawsuits, since Windows itself is a total clone. ¦ Reisio 01:51, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

Hmm, really? A clone of what? :-) --Ihope127 17:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi anonymous person. You might be interested in:

• Linspire (formally Lindows) which attempts to copy Windows' interface as closely as possible, also
• ReactOS which tries to build Windows from the ground up, and
• Wine (software), a project to allow a PC running X Window System to run x86 programs for Microsoft Windows

Pengo 05:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh, ReactOS sounds cool... maybe :-) --Ihope127 17:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

POV Article Name

The name of the article ("Linux") is POV (because of the linux naming controversy. Would anyone objects if I change it to the more NPOV term "Linux OS"?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.245.196.30 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 August 2005.

Yes, I would object. We try to use the name people will typically look for. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal either way. Let's not make things more complicated for no good reason. Rl 14:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Votes for Second para change

Rather than start an edit war i'd like to request opinions of a change of the second paragraph of article Linux.

I've changed around the second paragraph, trying to keep all the content but making it more readable, and less pretentious and prescriptive. That is, trying to talk about what the usage is in the real world, rather than what I think it should be, but leaving the argument in there too. I've moved the term "GNU/Linux" to be along side "Linux" as they are synonymous in this sense. I've also removed the needless link to http://lwn.net/Distributions/ . I originally simple unhid the link to GNU/Linux naming controversy, (by saying "see: ...") but later deleted it as it's discussed in the article, and i felt it was adequently addressed (for the opening paragraphs) already. Overall I feel the proposed version is simply more accessable and addresses the issues well, but i realise that isn't self evident to everyone, and it's a touchy area for some.

Rather than start an edit war i'd like to request votes to keep or ignore.

Proposed version:

Linux, or GNU/Linux, is Unix-like and combines the Linux kernel, libraries and tools from the GNU project, and other bundled software into a complete operating system. According to the Free Software Foundation and others, the term Linux strictly refers only to the Linux kernel, while the term GNU/Linux should be used otherwise so as to credit the contribution of the GNU project. Many Linux distributions exist to enable the installation and maintenance of the operating system.

Old version:

The term Linux strictly refers to the Linux kernel, but is commonly used to describe entire Unix-like operating systems (also known as GNU/Linux) that are based on the Linux kernel combined with libraries and tools from the GNU project. Linux distributions often bundle large quantities of software with the core system, and over 300 distributions are available [2].

Cast your vote...

—Pengo 03:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep ( i.e., vote for Proposed version ). I like it but i think a little more about the difference between the kernel and OS wouldnt be bad --2mcm 06:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see the need for having a vote on this; votes are evil and a last resort. Rl 07:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Pengo I think it's clear that a consensus was already reached on the "old version" and you should have discussed it here BEFORE changing it yet again. --Yath 03:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect to the "consensus", i wouldn't wipe my bum with the old version. I changed it, it got reverted. I put it up here for discussion and explained it. I waited. I changed it again. If you have any specific problems with it, please say so. —Pengo 05:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't care enough (yet) to propose a different wording. However, there's no need to express such contempt for a version that quite a few people could live with. For what it's worth, I don't remember participating in the creation of the old version, but I liked it better. Rl 06:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I like the idea of unhiding the "GNU/Linux naming controversy" link, but it isn't any more visible in the current version. Also, I find the old version more readable and direct. Could you explain how you find the old version pretentious and prescriptive? In particular, the charge of prescriptiveness is serious, as that's explicitly counter to what an encyclopedia ought to be. --Yath 06:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Prescriptive in the sense it says how the word "Linux" ought to be used (i.e. "The term Linux strictly refers to the Linux kernel"), rather than just talking about generally accepted usage. I put the proposed version back and someone (RandalSchwartz) added the GNU/Linux naming controversy link to it soon after. Probably a good thing. —Pengo 13:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I just ignored the vote, sorry. I think we can agree that: some call it Linux, others call it GNU/Linux, RMS and the GNU project want it to be GNU/Linux, Linus doesn't, and others are in various camps about that. Can we keep it to those facts? --14:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason why i prefered the new version is that is explains what Linux is from the ground up. If a non-Linux and non-computer user was to look at the old version they would still have no idea what Linux is ( maybe something to do with corn kernels ? ). The old version is fine but only on a very technical view. --2mcm 06:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, "strictly refers to" is not synonymous with "should be called", which is what Pengo seems to think. In the original, narrowest, most precise sense, "Linux" is a kernel and nothing more. As the article says, the name is also commonly used to refer to entire Unix-like operating systems built on the kernel. This is descriptive, not prescriptive: the introduction needs to make it clear the different things that "Linux" can refer to, and which sense is meant in the article. It's not primarily about the political "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux" debate, which is what the revised version makes it seem like — this is about the technical fact that the term "Linux" is used for three different things: the kernel, Unix-like operating systems using the kernel, and entire distributions. —Steven G. Johnson 17:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, Stevenj. I don't feel the old version reflects what you've said, but instead sounds like Linux-vs-GNU/Linux side-taking. The phrase "narrowest sense" is much better than "strictly speaking". I'd like to see something in the article that reflects what you've just said. I don't think the old version (or proposed version) does. —Pengo 02:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Rapidly growing popularity as a desktop system

Someone must really believe that this is the year of Linux on the desktop. We have all of this in the current version of the article:

• "Linux is rapidly gaining popularity as a desktop operating system."
• "Its market share for desktops is rapidly growing."
• "Linux is rapidly gaining popularity as a desktop operating system as it is increasingly used in schools and workplaces and more people become familiar with it."

"Slowly growing" seems like a much better description. Rl 07:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well it is good to be positive when writing articles but these take it a little too far. --2mcm 07:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. ¦ Reisio 09:47, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

Trademark issues

http://theinquirer.net/?article=25529

This article is about Linux trademark issues, not copyright. Rl 12:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Trademark issues - sorry. The point was to bring the article to your attention.

Unfortunately, the inq article is completely wrong. The issue itself could be expanded in the article, but a different source would be needed. http://lwn.net/Articles/148590/, for instance, which may be biased, but at least is well-informed. Rl 07:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Linux Takes Skill

Linux is not for everyone, even though it sounds so stable and reliable, you need to know codes and commands to do almost anything, to install almost anything. It is best for Computer programmers or IT professionals. Although Machintosh came out with a great GUI Interface which anybody can use and is completely based on the linux Kernal.

That's an interesting (albeit inaccurate) description, but anyways - did you have anything you actually wanted to discuss? ¦ Reisio 13:07, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

The new Machintosh operating system, Mac OS X, is not based on the Linux kernel. It is based on a UNIX-like OS, BSD, developed at Berkeley. —Sean κ. + 15:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

CNN story

Seems there will be a new linux-based system: Asia 'to show Linux-based system' Ben ^T/_C 11:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, but what a name; "Asianux" :p ¦ Reisio 11:59, 2005 August 24 (UTC)

desktop popularity

Linux has made considerable gains in server and special-purpose markets, such as image rendering and Web services, No doubts there, but... and is now making inroads into the high volume desktop market. Is this really true? I don't see Windows really being displaced by Linux at all in the desktop market. There should be some sources for this, because it seems like just a bit of POV to me. Sorry if I sound like a Microsoft fanboy, I'm just trying to get an accurate article. --Sum0 23:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Windows is losing ground much more rapidly outside the US in countries across Europe and the Orient. It doesn't take much to make inroads, either, and it's been doing that for a while. Some big names like HP have been selling computers with Linux preinstalled for quite some time. ¦ Reisio 01:12, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

£X = Linux?

Is £X a official acronym for Linux-systems? Wonder only. 82.182.82.20 08:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. ¦ Reisio 12:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Never seen it before —Sean κ. + 15:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Creator vs Author

As the FSF flawlessly discusses, author is a term much more appropiate for a person who makes software. A 'creator' is more of a divine term. For Kesla: Creator doesn't mean "initiator" or "founder" of the project.

--GTubio 21:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Flawlessly?...

"The term "creator" as applied to authors implicitly compares them to a deity ("the creator"). The term is used by publishers to elevate the authors' moral stature above that of ordinary people, to justify increased copyright power that the publishers can exercise in the name of the authors. We recommend saying "author" instead. However, in many cases "copyright holder" is what you really mean." [3]

...that? You must be joking. As I understand it, "creator" derives from Latin for "to create" - which has no religious connotation to it unless you attribute one yourself.

m-w.com:

creator:

: one that creates usually by bringing something new or original into being;

author

1 a : one that originates or creates : SOURCE <software authors> <the author of this crime> b capitalized : GOD 1

2 : the writer of a literary work (as a book)

tfd.com:

creator

1. One that creates: the creator of a new television series; a born creator of trouble.

2. Creator God. Used with the.

author

1.

a. The writer of a book, article, or other text.

b. One who practices writing as a profession.

2. One who writes or constructs an electronic document or system, such as a website.

3. An originator or creator, as of a theory or plan.

4. Author God.

There's an awful lot of overlap. I think "creator" is more appropriate because you can only create something once, and that's just what Linus did. "Authors" (as most commonly used) on the otherhand usually work alone and are recognized as the sole contributor to a work, which is not the case with Linux. You'd have to say "Initial author" or the like to get the equivalent of "creator". Considering the overlap, though, I don't care either way. ¦ Reisio 22:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Reisio that "creator" is more appropriate here, as saying "so-and-so, author of foo" usually connotes sole authorship. The FSF is right that, used indiscriminately, "creator" can sound a bit inflated, but I think it comes off okay here, and I don't see a better word. ——Steven G. Johnson 00:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

My main reason was to see people discuss this topic. As far as I'm concerned, in free software the "starter" of a project is usually called its author, because it is, in most cases, the main author. Furthermore, I didn't exactly meant "religious", but read whatever you want. Either way, your argument about sole authorship has made me think of "creator" as a probably better term.

--User:GTubio 07:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC) (I forgot to login :P)