Talk:Linux/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Sidebar confusing

I'm OK with this article not being mainly about the kernel, but the sidebar is very confused about whether to be about the kernel or the "whole thing". I think the side bar should go, or be radically changed, at the very least loosing version numbers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientus (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 March 5 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Yeah, that makes sense as there's no "version" of Linux, and including Linux kernel versions just introduces confusion. Got the infobox (that's how it's called) modified, but there's no need for any other changes to it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why does "Lynix" redirect here?

Does it mean anything? If it's just a misspelling, isn't that something for the search engine to deal with? 81.159.93.150 (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess it does no harm to have this redirect and there's nowhere better for it to redirect to. Tayste (edits) 20:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Well, "Lynix" isn't described in the target article, and search engines return nothing usable for the term; thus, it just introduces confusion without serving any purpose. With all that in mind, I've tagged the redirect with {{db}}, proposing its deletion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"I guess it does no harm to have this redirect"

Lynix should redirect to the Lynx disambiguation (animal, weapon, browser, etc.) if at all. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Both seem unlikely. But the typo (accidently inserting an "i") seems even less likely than a misspelling of a homophone. Google agrees, suggesting "linux" not "lynx" for a search for "lynix". Tayste (edits) 04:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The GNU/Linux redirect

An editor has changed the redirect at GNU/Linux to point to GNU rather than Linux. I reverted it because when people type GNU/Linux into Wikipedia, what most of them mean is the subject of this article. This is shown by all of the people trying to change the title of this article to GNU/Linux; half the discussions on this article's talk page wouldn't be about the naming of the article if they thought this article wasn't about GNU/Linux. I didn't want to just blindly revert, however, so I wanted to start a talk page discussion to see if there was any chance of a consensus or compelling reason why GNU/Linux should point to another article, such as GNU. - Aoidh (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

GNU/Linux is the FSF-approved term for what everyone else in the world calls Linux, so the redirect needs to point to Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Second that. GNU/Linux needs to redirect to Linux, not to GNU. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Much as the rest of the world ought to know better, it doesn't and we have to live with that fact. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it should point to Linux as that's what people expect and what the term refers to. BethNaught (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Then your only solution for that was by reporting me like a jerk, right?

If you are an anti-GNU zealot, then that's your own problem.

The truth about why GNU/Linux should link to GNU, is simply because as cited there, GNU/Linux is a set of free software replacements for Unix components, including the free versions of Linux kernel and other graphics sofware, which can be compiled and assembled together in the form of GNU/Linux distros, the thing what the free software movement worked for: and which other Linux based OS like Android didn't, and aimed instead to contain a lot of nonfree software and violate the GPLv2 by forking linux to a nonfree android kernel.

since GNU/Linux is different from other Linux variants and Linux is just a family of OS using the linux kernel: then GNU/Linux shouldn't link to Linux. and shortly GNU is an OS done for promoting freedom: that's why we find it shipped with other kernels instead like hurd or freebsd kernel like in Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and Debian GNU/Hurd: the thing which a bunch of editors wants to eliminate by refering to Debian mainly just as a "Linux distribution" which is TOTALLY WRONG AND BIASED.

Anyone here including you, who is tracking my edits and reverting it for personal reasons, like what you did for the Free software portal, GNOME and Debian, should at least be honnest and know his own limits. Kb333 (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone should be aware of their own limits, including you, Kb333. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have warned User:Kb333 for his incivil post above. - Ahunt (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Kb333 seems to have returned from his block for edit-warring and is right back to edit-warring over this redirect once again. I have warned him on his talk page and asked him to make his case here instead of continuing his edit-war. He is already at two reverts for the redirect so far today. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Kb333, please read the WP:DEADHORSE essay; sometimes, it's simply much better to leave things as-is. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Kb333 seems to be on an edit-war spree and needs a block. - Ahunt (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

...and User:Kb333 is blocked for two weeks. Given that I think we can wrap this discussion up as a consensus that this redirect should remain pointing to Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please also have a look at the Tux article, which recently had its "moments". — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Might be looking at a WP:SPI if that continues. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The term GNU/Linux exists for say that a traditional Linux distribution is not only a distribution of a Linux operating system but also a distribution of the GNU operating system, and, as well there is an article for Android (operating system) at Wikipedia, which also is a Linux system, then, GNU/Linux should be or a separated article as well as Android is, or at least be a disambiguation page. In the past discussion, non-GNU Linux based systems were not common for have separated article, but now it does.--Luizdl ^Talk 22:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That's what Linux distribution is for. It's not called GNU/Linux, however, because that's a minority POV term that isn't used by most reliable sources, but Linux is a summary-style article that gives an overview of the entire subject, and articles like Linux distribution cover some of the more specific details. - Aoidh (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I just suggest that the redirect could be at least a disambiguation page, linking to GNU and to Linux, with a "see also" section to the naming controversy article.--Luizdl ^Talk 14:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest that a dab link at Linux would be more appropriate, something like, For the GNU OS and GNU tool chain, see GNU. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hm, why should anyone landing at the Linux article be confused and actually be searching for the GNU article? Hatnotes are used when there's high potential for a confusion between the subjects; I'd say that isn't the case here. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This would obviously be someone looking for information about "GNU/Linux" and getting redirected here. But we don't know at this stage if they might be thinking more of the GNU toolchain, the Linux kernel, the relationship between the two or the whole build. So we need to offer all that. Of these, only the GNU specifics are not discussed in this article, hence the value of this particular dab link. IMHO. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, however, this is the primary topic for "Linux", overwhelmingly so, in fact, so this particular title could not be a dab page. This is reinforced by WP:DABCONCEPT. There already exists a Linux (disambiguation) page, which is linked at the top of this article, so any value given by such a dab page already exists. - Aoidh (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I suspect you miss the point. There is a difference between a dab link at the top of an article as opposed to a dab page with nothing else in it. There is also a difference between a reader following up on "Linux" and a reader following up on "GNU/Linux". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A dab page with nothing else in it at this exact title would be contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on dab pages, because this is the primary topic for this title. That is the point, and how such things are determined on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with you entirely. Did I write something to suggest that I don't? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see the statistics for Linux and GNU/Linux pages. Based on that, not too many people land on the Linux article by following the GNU/Linux redirect, which is used when one searches the Wikipedia for "GNU/Linux". That's another argument against the inclusion of a hatnote. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines on how frequently a page needs to be visited before it can be considered significant for this purpose? I do not regard a visitor as less important because they have a less commonplace interest than most. I would argue that the relatively low frequency of such redirects demonstrates a general ignorance of the usage and all the more need for a hatnote or similiar disambig link. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There are no strict guidelines for sure, but common sense applies. Thus, a quite low frequency of visits can't be a reasonable argument for the inclusion of an additional hatnote, especially as we already have "for other uses, see Linux (disambiguation)" as a hatnote. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

But the existing hatnote is disambiguating "Linux". I am talking about readers following up on the text title "GNU/Linux" which, as you will observe, begins with the triple glyph "GNU". Linux (disambiguation) is singularly unhelpful to such a visitor: it does not (and should not) attempt to disambiguate or even mention the GNU bit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, no hatnotes can guide the readers unable to comprehend such things on their own after reading an article. Articles are supposed to be read by the visitors, which is why we're writing them in the first place, not to serve as promotional entry points for other articles. Also, if someone is really interested in "GNU" as a term, he or she will specifically search the Wikipedia for "GNU". Problem solved. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh! I think I get it now! That word "promotional" gives it away. You think I am a GNU fanatic pushing my luck? You think I lack good faith? I wondered where the antipathy was coming from. No, I am here as a wikipedian who respects GNU fanatics neither more nor less than I respect anybody else, such as your good self. The whole point about a hatnote is of course that it does serve as an entry to another page, just not a "promotional" one as you put it. Also, note that the visitor I am talking about has already gone to GNU/Linux and been redirected: note the "Linux" in their interest at this point, as well as the GNU. As I wrote earlier, "This would obviously be someone looking for information about "GNU/Linux" and getting redirected here. But we don't know at this stage if they might be thinking more of the GNU toolchain, the Linux kernel, the relationship between the two or the whole build. So we need to offer all that. Of these, only the GNU specifics are not discussed in this article, hence the value of this particular dab link. IMHO." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't assume they think you lack good faith. To put "GNU" at the top of this article does come across as promotional, in the sense that it doesn't fit with the purpose of a hatnote. GNU/Linux redirects to this article because this is the subject that GNU/Linux refers to. If someone wants to arrive at GNU, it's found within this article in the appropriate location, but GNU itself and GNU/Linux are not similar terms for the same thing by any means. - Aoidh (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually it does, the term GNU/Linux was invented to say the OS is the GNU operating system running with the Linux Kernel, making it both GNU and Linux based system. Many well known distros like Debian call it as GNU/Linux when uses Linux kernel, Debian GNU/kFreeBSD when uses the Free BSD kernel, and even Debian GNU/Hurd when uses the own GNU kernal--Luizdl ^Talk 21:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It does what? What does that have to do with a hatnote? What you're describing is already covered in relevant articles, which are linked in this article. - Aoidh (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is that the redirect named GNU/Linux is pointed to here, and when someone searches for GNU/Linux is redirect to this article that is past was referring only to GNU/Linux system, historically called just as Linux, but now this article is about to any linux-based distribution including those that have nothing to do with GNU such as Android, Web OS, embedded devices etc. It should be a disambiguation page, but if we keep as redirect, should at least have a dab link as Steelpillow suggested.--Luizdl ^Talk 22:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you haven't explained why there should be a dab link, because what you're suggesting be linked is already linked in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It may well be linked already, but why should a reader have to plow through half the wrong article before finding a link to the right one? This is exactly the kind of thing that dab links, such as in hatnotes, are there to resolve. It's not as if they wanted to come here, we forcibly redirected then from GNU/Linux, the least we can do is to show some courtesy in disambiguating which half of that is their core interest. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

GNU/Linux isn't "half GNU, half Linux", and it's not as if GNU/Linux redirects to an article on the Linux kernel. It's redirecting to what most people and most reliable sources actually call GNU/Linux: Linux. As Linux is also the name of the kernel, the kernel hatnote is there to direct readers to a topic with the same name as this one, Linux. That's why that hatnote is there and a GNU one isn't; there's no kernel called GNU/Linux, no other article with that same title that may be confused for this one, and that's the purpose of a hatnote. Someone typing in GNU/Linux wants the article about that topic, and that's what this this article is. Placing a hatnote to GNU isn't a "courtesy" because there's no cause to include it, and this isn't the wrong article as you put it; this is the article which covers the topic that some people refer to as GNU/Linux. So if, as you suggest, their core interest is GNU/Linux, this is the article they mean to arrive at. It's not the "wrong" one, so trying to "fix" it by ignoring Wikipedia convention and placing a hatnote to an article that has no business being a hatnote is not the answer. If you're suggesting that they may be confused as to why GNU/Linux redirects here, that is answered in the lede of the article, the most prominent place of the entire article that many readers view before they even see the hatnote, so there's no ambiguity that needs clarification here, further reinforcing the fact that such a hatnote serves no purpose for the reader. - Aoidh (talk) 10:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You ask Luizdl (talk · contribs) why, then when I explain, you argue against a case I did not make. I do not "suggest that their core interest is GNU/Linux", but have twice before pointed out that someone who gets redirected by that page might have any of four possible core interests in mind. This article meets three of those possibilties, it does not meet the fourth (viz. "Where is this GNU half of GNU/Linux coming from?"). I suggested a dab link in general, somebody mentioned a hatnote specifically, you find that hatnote promotional and, apparently, immoral. I don't care how it is done as long as the poor visitor does not have to plow through a lot of information addressing the other three use cases. That mention of GNU/Linux in the lead does not even have a link to the GNU article (the fourth use case). Would it be acceptable to rephrase it so that a link can be added there? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't argue against a case you did not make, I addressed what you said concerning "which half of that is their core interest". As I said, ""Where is this GNU half of GNU/Linux coming from?" is answered in the lede: "The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to describe the operating system". It then includes a link to GNU/Linux naming controversy, which more than addresses the answer to your question, albeit not in the way that some would like. It doesn't include a link to GNU in the lede because it's not about GNU, it's about the name GNU/Linux. A wikilink to the GNU Project is in the very first subsection of the article, The "poor visitor" doesn't need to be overwhelmed with irrelevant links when they're already found in the article proper, that is the issue. Also, please mind things like the "immoral" comment, as there was no cause for that. - Aoidh (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You point me to WP:RGW, which in full is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting Great Wrongs then you deny there is a moral dimension here. That is a flat self-contradiction. The rest of your post suffers equally broken logic, as already explained. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Because you claimed this was the "wrong" article. But if these are the kind of comments you're going to give, there's no point in continuing this line of discussion, especially if "you don't agree with me so your logic is broken" is the best argument you can make when your points are addressed. You've given no compelling reason why there should be a hatnote, especially not one in line with Wikipedia's conventions on the matter, and have no consensus for anything of the sort. Given your responses, I have nothing more to say on the matter. - Aoidh (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What should we do about someone looking for information about "GNU/Linux" and getting redirected here? (i.e. back on topic) I have suggested that we don't know at this stage if they might be thinking more of the GNU toolchain, the Linux kernel, the relationship between the two or the whole build. So we need to offer all that. Of these, only the GNU specifics are not discussed in this article, hence the need for this particular dab link, IMHO. I have no strong view on the appropriate mechanism (hatnote, rephrasing the lead, etc.) and am quite happy for it to be low-key, but I do think that the visitor wondering about the GNU part should be offered a link to the GNU article earlier than at present. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As it has been already explained more than once, that's already covered in the article's lead section, together with links to appropriate articles describing the whole thing further. Please realise that there's no need to go over and over the same thing. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that is wrong. I would hardly be suggesting a change if the issue was, as you claim, already covered. At least one other editor has supported my suggestion. You and another editor diverted this thread by attacking things I did not say, sure, but I am still seeking comments on what I did say. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop the with incivility. Given your "immoral" comment, accusing others of attacking things you did not say comes off as disingenuous. You raised concerns, those concerns were addressed. Just because the article doesn't cover it in a way you want doesn't mean the material isn't covered. The "GNU specifics" are discussed in this article, and "the GNU part" has a link in the lede paragraph. There is no more prominent place for such a link, so yes, it is covered in the article and the GNU aspects are further elaborated in the actual article. I suggest you take your own advice and comment on this, and not other editors. - Aoidh (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The links in the lead referred to above are to the GNU/Linux naming controversy and the GNU General Public License. Neither of these is appropriate to the visitor I discuss. GNU itself and the GNU project first get linked to in the section on the User interface design. All I am suggesting is that such a link should be given sooner. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we consider this change to be some kind of a compromise? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that is fine. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, I'm so glad that we've reached some kind of a compromise. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)