Talk:Linux/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Renaming "Linux" (sic) to "GNU/Linux"

The NPOV have limits. Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia", so it should of course promote the Free Culture (so Free Software, which is contained in Free Culture).

Most "Linux distros" (sic) are modified versions of GNU. The GNU project started GNU at 1984, years before Linus Torvalds started to write his kernel. The RMS's objective was to develop an 100% free Unix-compatible operating system : the GNU system. The GNU project do not develops all elements, but the most. The GNU project opens the way for create a free system and creates importants free operating system components. That is the most important contribution.

So, GNU must is in the name of the GNU/Linux system. Because GNU/Linux is just GNU with a different kernel : Linux, which is just a kernel. A kernel is not more or less important than the rest of the system. The C library are important, and are hard to write too. The shelltoo, the core utils too. Most parts of the system is important and hard to write.

Linus Torvalds gives a big contribution too, but that's nothing compared with the GNU project contribution. But he, and the most of the Linux developers do not care about freedom, which is the goal of projects like Wikipedia, GNU, etc.

Peoples who says "Linux" gave a bad idea of the goal of the GNU system (and the GNU/Linux system, so).

At the Linux kernel project starting, all peoples using GNU/Linux was hackers, and hackers of this time know all that Linux is just the kernel, and GNU is a big part with. But the arrival of Slackware "Linux" (sic) has changed the situation. Slackware was (and is always) destinated to normal peoples, not hackers. Normal people do not know about GNU. Bad idea began to spread. Red Hat began creating another distribution, Red Hat Commercial "Linux" (sic). If Red Hat had the ideals of freedom, it would surely say "GNU/Linux" or "GNU/Linux/X" or "Linux/GNU" or "Linux/GNU/X". But Red Hat is a business, and unfortunately, businesses have no ideals of freedom. (Note : Red Hat have declined the FSF proposition for say "GNU/Linux", IBM too. But Mandrake have accepted. Thanks Mandrake.)

Debian arrive and invent the "GNU/Linux" term, but that was too late. But "too late" do not exists now. If we use the "GNU/Linux" term, that will change the situation. Distros like Debian, Trisquel or Parabola uses the "GNU/Linux" term. Thanks Debian, Trisquel and Parabola.

The peoples who says "Linux" think the "Linux" (sic) system is created by Linux Torvalds in the 90. But GNU/Linux is created by the GNU project and Linus Torvalds, in the 80 (original contribution)/90 (kernel contribution).

Of course, when we talk about the kernel, "Linux, the kernel" and "the kernel, Linux" are good terms. When you talk about the system, tell "GNU/Linux". If you talk about the kernel, tell "Linux, the kernel" or "the kernel, Linux". That removes all disambiguation.

If GNU did not exist, nobody would create a free system. Because today, the only free systems are either variants of GNU or BSD variants. BSD was released because the GNU project requested. Linux was a project designed to "help" with a kernel and GNU was specifically for the GNU system. Even if Linus would have created a kernel, it would surely not be released because he was influenced by a lecture by Richard Stallman. Although it would under a free license, free core would not really make a difference in the world.

So, for defend the freedom (which is the goal of Wikipedia), please rename articles who tell about "The Linux System" (sic) for they tell about GNU/Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Nooo, not again. :) Please, have a look at Talk:Linux/Archive 41 § Page move: GNU/Linux for a lengthy discussion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't read all. But I don't understand the arguments of opponents. What's clearly the opponents arguments? The majority of peoples who tells "Linux" (sic)? The popularity of an error do not make it true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 13:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Clearly "Linux" is the winning encumbent in the page move debate. Fine. But I feel called to change the second sentence in the lead paragraph: The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds. The GNU/Linux naming controversy is a perpetual calling. — CpiralCpiral 23:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You're going to need consensus to change that sentence, which I don't think you can get. The entire lede paragraph, including that sentence, reflects a lot of discussion and talk page negotiation. Msnicki (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Linux" isn't WP:PRECISE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 April 2014‎ (UTC)

You can't just cite a guideline, you have to show how it applies and gain consensus that you're right. There's an existing consensus that the existing title is just exactly as precise as it ought to be. "Linux" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic, e.g., as shown in the search engine statistics I presented during the last debate. Msnicki (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This article being at this topic falls well within WP:PRECISE, as that guideline specifically notes; this article's subject is the primary topic for the word "Linux". This isn't any different than any other article that is the primary topic, and isn't an argument for changing the title that is in any way consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines or consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Linux was a kernel, is a kernel, and will be a kernel for ever. When I see a software that works like a kernel, is destinated to be like a kernel, its role is like a kernel, I call that software a kernel. So, it isn't WP:PRECISE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 08:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The Linux kernel is overwhelmingly referred to as the "Linux kernel", not "Linux". Reliable sources unambiguously refute any claim that Linux is just a kernel (if that's really what you're trying to suggest), and when the kernel is referred to, it is not referred to simply as "Linux" by pretty much any reliable source that I could find, whereas this article's topic is referred to simply as "Linux" by the vast majority of sources. The Linux kernel is a kernel, yes. There's an article for that at the appropriate title, a title which is used by reliable sources for that subject. That has nothing to do with this article and has no bearing on the title's precision. This article is not solely about the kernel, and is referred to by reliable sources as "Linux". So again, WP:PRECISE does not support what you're saying at all. - Aoidh (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Linux is destinated to be a kernel, works like a kernel. THIS IS A KERNEL. Even Linus says it : "linux is a complete kernel", "This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds", "Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info." Sosolal (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Linux is a kernel, hence the article Linux kernel. But the kernel is not the only thing that is called Linux, so of course the kernel is a complete kernel, that still has nothing to do with this subject, you're arguing to change this subject because another subject exists and you're under the impression that the kernel is the only thing called Linux; that is inaccurate. You can show all day that Linux is the name of a kernel, that does not matter one bit. The WP:COMMONNAME for this subject is Linux, and this subject is the primary topic for the word "Linux". Even if that were not the case, the article would be called Linux (operating system) or something similar; not GNU/Linux, which is a minority POV term not used by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, and reliable sources use Linux to describe this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You still not understand... Even Linus says that : Linux is a kernel, and the operating system is GNU : "Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software [...] These tools aren't in the distribution." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.212.130.163 (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

... and there's another article, GNU/Linux naming controversy. Everything is covered, and this discussion doesn't make much sense, except by being a political promotion toward the free software movement. I do highly respect GNU and everything they've done and what they're still doing, but c'mon, let's face the reality and get over the politics. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Wikipedia uses reliable sources to dictate content, content is not determined by rationalizing to support a minority POV. 78, I never said Linux wasn't a kernel, so you quoting someone doesn't change that (nor does the quote say that "the operating system is GNU"). Saying that the tools used with the operating system are under a different copyright isn't the same as saying "the operating system is GNU". - Aoidh (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Aoidh: You sir are overstating when you claim "reliable sources unambiguously refute any claim that Linux is just a kernel". I can interpret the previous sentence in two senses and both can be proven wrong. Here they are:

• When some source of information that qualifies for reliable use within Wikipedia claims or implies the term Linux covers more than just a kernel, where Linux kernel is used to refer to the kernel itself in order to avoid the most obvious kind of ambiguity (as you stress), the aforementioned source would still be incurring in another kind of ambiguity coming from the language construct used for "Linux kernel" itself, coincidently. Since the underlying English grammar behind "Linux kernel" can either mean "the kernel called Linux" (a single entity expressed as particular name plus category, for example: the XBox console, the Cognaq brandy, the Cognaq beverage) or "the kernel possessed by or pertaining another entity (not a kernel) called Linux" (2 different entities the latter pertaining the former, for example: the Christmas tree, the Microsoft console), it turns out that the sole expression Linux kernel is ambiguous, regardless of who is saying it or whether both meanings are true in the case of Linux because common usage reflects a preference for ambiguity (as is the case of the coffee beverage). This is why Stallman suggested saying "Linux, the kernel" instead of "Linux kernel" for denoting the word Linux doesn't convey other meaning than a kernel to you.
• The second way to interpret your sentence and its corresponding refutation are related to the fact that some reliable sources exist which opt to use the term Linux to mean nothing but a kernel, thus contradicting the sources which don't, and adding up to the general ambiguity. This is trivially demonstrable; a single counterexample should suffice and such an instance follows:

A reference implementation of this architecture was first integrated into a security-enhanced Linux® prototype system in order to demonstrate the value of flexible mandatory access controls...

The architecture has been subsequently mainstreamed into Linux and ported to several other systems, including the Solaris™ operating system, the FreeBSD® operating system, and the Darwin kernel,...

— the NSA on SELinux (a bunch of security additions to the kernel and to nothing else but the kernel), source

As for the previous quotation, please note how the source says the Darwin kernel but never uses the Linux kernel, therefore elucidating their intentions to use Linux alone to name a kernel. Whether they think a kernel is the same as an operating system is off-topic. I'm not saying most sources do likewise, what I'm saying is Linux kernel isn't strictly WP:PRECISE and of course Linux as used mainstream isn't WP:PRECISE even in opposition to WP:COMMONNAME, hence the need for Linux (disambiguation). I'm not asking for a page move, because I agree that most sources say Linux and not GNU/Linux, unfortunately. However, please refrain from giving undue weight to the GNU/Linux POV because it is pretty much covered by a substantial minority of non-primary reliable sources and the WP:POV guideline demands proportional representation. So no more " [the kernel] is not referred to simply as "Linux" by pretty much any reliable source that I could find." and no more "reliable sources use Linux to describe this article's subject" as a means to foster an agenda to nearly entirely exclude the GNU/Linux point of view from the article, specially the much needed brief mention of GNU/Linux in the lead; or as a means to erase the link to the GNU/Linux naming controversy (hilarious clean-up because they deemed a link to SCO-Linux controversies deserved a mention but the GNU/Linux thing didn't). By the way, search engine results do not qualify as an argument for WP:COMMONNAME because WP:COMMONNAME is about commonness among WP:RS. Indexed web pages do not necessarily count as reliable sources.--Sisgeo (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but both of your "interpretations" are wrong, the first one stretching logic to its breaking point and the second just being flat out wrong. If you have issue with "Linux kernel", you are welcome to discuss it at Talk:Linux kernel, but that's a separate topic from this article and again, you're arguing against reliable sources. The quote you gave above comes nowhere close to referring to the Linux kernel solely as Linux (speculating on their "intentions" where they don't suggest anything of the sort is WP:OR). I'm not sure why you're suggesting that I no longer say that "Linux" is not used to describe the kernel by any sources I could find"; that is and remains true, and the quote you have above certainly does nothing to change that. Even when the FSF uses Linux to describe the kernel, they immediately place it into context ("Linux, the kernel"), and the FSF is the only example I can find of even that; most other sources use "Linux kernel" or something similar. I also didn't say anything about search engine results, and primary sources using GNU/Linux is not a claim of any "substantial minority". - Aoidh (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but both of your "interpretations" are wrong, the first one stretching logic to its breaking point...

What? It's a simple Noun adjunct case. Whether you find the logical argument too expansive is irrelevant to its soundness against your claim that Reliable sources unambiguously refute any claim that Linux is just a kernel.

...and the second just being flat out wrong.

Nice argument.

The quote you gave above comes nowhere close to referring to the Linux kernel solely as Linux (speculating on their "intentions" where they don't suggest anything of the sort is WP:OR).

My ramblings on the implications for that source are not speculation; moreover, they are needless. Ignore what I said if you want, just read the source text, which is a reliable secondary one and a crystal clear example that came very ad hoc to disprove you when you say none except the FSF uses Linux to refer solely to a kernel. Are all references subject to original research because Wikipedians have to interpret them before they are added to an article?, or does that policy only applies to sources you would rather like to ignore? I just found another reliable secondary source that states Linux is just a kernel. Please read the section called "GNU/Linux history" in chapter 1.

I also didn't say anything about search engine results

That's true. It was Msnicki who brought it into question. Anyway, those are original research and won't hold water in our discussion.

...primary sources using GNU/Linux is not a claim of any "substantial minority"

Please re-read my previous comment. I gave a link to a recently-added list of non-primary (i.e. secondary, tertiary) sources using GNU/Linux. Then read the Neutral Point of View policy and ask yourself whether the current state of the Linux article complies with the requirements related to substantial minorities. --Sisgeo (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Rather than adding another (GNU/)Linux section, I thought I'd just add it here. This edit in December -- without discussion as far as I can find -- removed all mention of the GNU project and the "GNU/Linux" controversy from the lead. I suggest, just as a matter of clarity, "GNU/Linux" be put somewhere in the lead: probably not the opening paragraph. What y'all think? --Inops (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I don't believe that edit reflects consensus and I have reverted it, pending further discussion. We do not decide controversies certainly not buy burying the disfavored side. We simply report them proportionately. I believe the guidelines, especially WP:COMMONNAME, make clear that the title of the article should be Linux. But the naming controversy deserves mention in the lede. Msnicki (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Simply agreed. --Sisgeo (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A wheel does not become a whole car just because people started calling it "car". So, in this scenario, the "wheel" article, instead of saying "wheel is a car..." just because people call it like that, should have a note clarifying that it is a component of a car and that it is also erroneously called "car". Likewise, a kernel doesn't become a whole operating system just because people call it erroneously like that. The "Linux" article should be an explanation of what it is as well as contain a note informing that people generally call it erroneously a whole operating system.

Also, being a "reliable source" doesn't mean they don't make some mistakes sometimes - or very often in this case - and this is a widespread one. And a false statement doesn't become true by popularity. So, technically and historically, the distributions often called "Linux distributions" are in fact GNU/Linux when they contain the GNU userland and the kernel Linux. Likewise when combining the FreeBSD userland with the kernel Linux you have a FreeBSD/Linux; when combining the GNU userland with the kernel from FreeBSD you have a GNU/FreeBSD(Or GNU/kFreeBSD, like the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD version distro); and so on. It's also fair to call one of those GNU/Linux/X11 for example, when having the X11 component, but the operating system per se doesn't need the window system to fully work.

WP:COMMONNAME is not meant to accept false statements. Bill Clinton, for example, is a WP:COMMONNAME and leads to "William Jefferson Blythe III"'s page, but there the real name is given. So, either "Linux" should lead to "GNU/Linux" and the mistake is explained as well as an explanation that GNU/Linux is an operating system that combines the GNU userland with the kernel Linux or it should lead to the kernel Linux page and a note saying that people generally confuse the word "Linux" with some distributed operating systems that combines GNU and Linux, usually by lack of technical information or because previous uninformed people didn't explained correctly what is what. A page like this on Wikipedia should be a place where uninformed people comes and finally discovers that they're using the wrong terms and the mistake is clarified. This page on Wikipedia shouldn't be another place that reiterates the wrong information. The information contained on a Wikipedia article should be guided by technical details and not by popularity of the terms. There's nothing wrong with a WP:COMMONNAME that carries the wrong information, but when people arrive at the page, the mistake should be clarified. So, ultimately, I strongly support the naming change to GNU/Linux when the combination of the GNU userland with the kernel Linux is the case. As a different case example, Google's Android doesn't use the GNU userland, so it's not a case to use GNU/Linux, for example, and no one claims so. 189.127.212.79 (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the GNU/Linux operating system main author is the GNU project, so the GNU project's advice should be respected. Sosolal (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"Bill Clinton, for example, is a WP:COMMONNAME and leads to 'William Jefferson Blythe IIIs page, but there the real name is given. So, either 'Linux' should lead to 'GNU/Linux' and the mistake is explained as well as an explanation that GNU/Linux is an operating system that combines the GNU userland with the kernel Linux or…" —I think this would help, too. startswithj (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read this, as well as all the other discussions for numerous reasons why that wouldn't work. For one, this article covers things that even RMS is quite adamant about not calling GNU/Linux, so that alone precludes any chance of this article being referred to as GNU/Linux. It's not a mistake, and Wikipedia exists to reflect given knowledge, not to correct it. The idea that this article's topic (even the relevant parts) should be called GNU/Linux is a minority opinion rejected by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. This article's topic is known as Linux, that's not an error. - Aoidh (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah because like Hurd is like a fantastically successful operating system. AlanS (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)