Talk:Linux distribution/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

DistroWatch is not authorative

DistroWatch has to be taken with a bag of salt. It doesn't monitor downloads, or "popularity" (people often say it "monitors popularity" without saying how this is measured). It just hosts a webpage for each distro and publishes which page gets the most hits. This has two problems. One is that there is no direct link between popularity and the number of hits a page on an arbitrary website gets. The second is that it's easy to game that system - just link to it or use other means to encourage users of your distro to go there. Even the owner of DistroWatch says this: "I'd like to believe that there is some truth in the figures, but in all honesty, they really don't mean all that much and should not be taken very seriously."[1] So the figures published there is, at best, an indication (and at worst false because some distro(s) are gaming the system). Gronky 22:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the edit, I'm going to remove the DistroWatch based info since it's incorrect to call DistroWatch's list a "summary of the top then distros", and it's incorrect to say this summary is sorted "by popularity", and the baselessness of these figures and rankings is not expressed by the description "ranked by page hits" - since the reader isn't told where these pages are, and the reader isn't told that there is no reason for a user of any distro to hit any of those pages (I never have). Sorry to undo some good-faith work, but that DistroWatch figures have value is just a common misconception. Gronky 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that this is a POV with respect to the uselessness of DistroWatch and it not being a citable source of information. Certainly when I look at that list, those are by and large what I consider the "top" distributions. Yes, that's purely subjective on my part, but the point is that while the order may not be 100% accurate, it's still pretty good. I would prefer it if you put the DW info back, and added a link to the Groklaw article pointing out that the figures are to be taken with a grain (bag, whatever) of salt. Otherwise, we still need a list of the most "popular" distributions on this page, and barring the DW info I don't know how you're going to come up with that fairly. Do you see what I'm getting at? Let the reader make their own choices with respect to reliability, don't censor things for them. Chris Pickett 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In summary, if you Google "most popular linux distributions" or some variant thereof you'll invariably end up at DW. Rather than just ignore its existence, Wikipedia should present the information and also present the claims that the information is unreliable. Then WP can actually play a role beyond simply replicating the DW results, and help educate people. Otherwise, somebody curious about Linux might come along, not find anything written in WP about the subject, turn to Google, and hit DW, without fully comprehending the situation. Chris Pickett 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So my issue is that it's misleading to present that data without full context, and your issue is that not talking about DistroWatch will leave readers uneducated. It seems that there's no fundamental conflict, so I think I see a solution: put the DW data on the DW page, and discuss DW in this article without also printing the data here. How's that? Gronky 02:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty good, I don't think that table of raw data is very fit for this page anyway. Thanks! (Although, if you aren't presenting the DW data here, don't caution the user before they click on the wikilink; that's like, "warning, dubious information lies ahead!") There's another reference to DW further up, and some other links, maybe that whole bit should go into the Popularity section. However, that all taken care of, I still think Linux distribution needs to list the "major" distros, in alphabetical order. (So popularity should be renamed to "Major distributions".) I would like to see logos for them too. How you determine that information, I don't know, but it needs to be here. The basic question is, which distributions are notable enough for WP to list them on its Linux distribution page? There may well be some that are not "popular" that are worth listing for their unique qualities, for example Linux From Scratch. And generally, IMO, a distro that is downstream from another one probably doesn't need listing, with Ubuntu being an important notable exception. Chris Pickett 02:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the warning about a link to a page which has a warning :-) I don't know what would be a good criteria or a good source to justify any list of distros. To me, the big four are Red Hat (including Fedora), SuSE (including OpenSuSE), Debian, and Ubuntu ...and maybe Mandriva would be a fifth. This is based on a decade of personal observation, but I've got nothing that would fit into <ref></ref> tags. Gronky 03:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd add Gentoo, Knoppix, MEPIS, Linux from Scratch, and Slackware to that list. I looked through the article and unless I missed something, those plus yours are the ones that are already mentioned somewhere in the body text, save Slackware. Slack is notable and important though, it's one of the oldest surviving distros. I've never really heard about MEPIS before but apparently it's popular. There, that would be 10 distros total. Oh---I just looked at DistroWatch, which gets all of those save LFS: apparently Xandros is the 10th "major" distro. Is it? I have no idea, despite being from Canada myself. I would also nominate Linspire because of all the press it has received. So 12 altogether then, a pretty varied list. I'm thinking about mentioning your 5 but without Mandriva and with Gentoo and perhaps Knoppix instead on the main Linux page when I expand the distribution section a little more. Cheers, Chris Pickett 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I guess for the sake of world-wide view neutrality, a discussion as to how distro popularity varies by region would be worthwhile. Refs are a problem as always, but for example, Mandriva's popularity in France, Conectiva in Brazil... hmmmm.... Chris Pickett 03:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, it turns out Mandriva is Mandrake plus Conectiva, I should really pay more attention :/ Chris Pickett 03:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember at one point thinking that Turbolinux was a big distro, but I can't remember why. Maybe it's big with the non-latin alphabet half of the World. Gronky 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Tiny English article, much bigger Japanese one :) I guess the only criterion I can come up with for non-notability is that if it's downstream of another distro, it doesn't really count, unless there are significant changes. So focused localization efforts that eventually make their way back upstream aren't notable, but Ubuntu is. Turbolinux appears to be in then, not a fork, and founded in 1992 and still going strong, and part of the United Linux venture with other big names already mentioned. Asianux is comparable to United Linux, and actually I think it's quite interesting that in two different cases groups of distributions banded together like that. Whether the individual distros that draw from Asianux count, I can't really say. And what about the Arabic and Hindi worlds? Gosh, there's a lot of interesting story behind all the different Linux distros that I think is appropriate to tell here. Oh, and of course Caldera OpenLinux needs description :p. Note that I'm not suggesting all these distros be rattled off in a list, other pages already do that; rather more a discussion for each as to what makes distro X significant/different from the others/famous/infamous/whatever. Chris Pickett 04:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Linuxiso.org

I am removing the (dead) link to linuxiso.org. It doesnt look like it will be returning anytime soon Dondilly 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Never heard of Aurox; spam?

We have an anonymous edit by User:194.57.239.1 that adds Aurox to the list. I'm pretty sure that isn't one of the major distros judging by all the Linux distro websites that keep statistics about this. I'm going to remove this for now until someone can prove it actually is noteworthy. -75.4.132.80 14:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OSVids.com

I just noticed that that site is either not up, or no longer. Thought.."I wonder why it's a link". RuMoR 01:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Popularity statistics

This article would benefit from popularity comparisons among distributions, if anything more reliable than the apparently not-so-reliable DistroWatch list exists. -- Beland 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Satux

Never heard about that distro. What is that thing doing in the popular distro listing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuineR (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 December 2007

I agree. It would appear to be a (currently) non-notable distribution, and has probably been added here to try and make it more popular. The editor has been notified of this previously it would appear. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

lead sentence giving unfair representation?

(Possibly related to above)

The lead sentence, as it is now, reads: "A Linux distribution, often simply distribution or distro, is a member of the Linux family of Unix-like computer operating systems. Such systems are built from the Linux kernel and assorted other packages, such as the X Window System and software from the GNU project."

I think this unnecessarily marginalizes the GNU project's contribution. I know this is something of a nit-picking, but the mention of GNU project should come *before* X Window System. Lots of distributions will let you install it without the X component (for example, if you choose to install just the base system for Debian, i.e. what's in the netinstall CD), but almost never (i.e. except for the small exceptions noted in the article) without the GNU tools. Given this important role in a distribution, marginalizing GNU project's contribution by lumping it together with "assorted other packages" seems to be more than unfair.

I propose the following sentence (+ wikilinks present at the moment) as the replacement, please comment and propose changes to it so it better adheres to the NPOV:

"A Linux distribution, often simply distribution or distro, is a member of the Linux family of Unix-like computer operating system. Such systems contain the Linux kernel, userland tools developed by the GNU project, and, frequently, the X Window System, along with other assorted software packages."

It sounds a little rough to me as it stands, but I think this (esp. the order of mention) distributes the credit more fairly than the current sentence. novakyu (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

revert warS

KDP's edit narrative "rv There is a policy here. WP:WEIGHT. 1 in 20 is close to WP:FRINGE": Not on my reading. Or, I contend, any reading. The classic example in WP:FRINGE is the flat earth theory. To call the GNU/Linux a fringe name in the same way that flat earth is a fringe theory is preposterous. The WP:WEIGHT section time and time again seems plain: Doesn't apply. I'll wait a day or two to discuss this and, failing that, revert. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Failing that, you could leave the damn thing alone until the issue on Talk:Linux is resolved. I was asked to refrain from editing to this effect while the dispute was ongoing and have done so. You have continued to edit in such a manner, including getting into revert wars over it. So I'm asking you to likewise refrain from contentious editing on this issue for the time being as an act of good faith. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, my edit history shows me as doing just what you say. You cannot say I have not spent much energy in discussion things to the n-th degree on the Talk pages. I've done so without hardly touching article space. But look at the history on this page. The uneasy truce was being scrupulously maintained and then the article lead sentence was moved significantly in one direction by an anonymous edit. Perhaps my mistake was not to log out before reverting! But that's not the way I work. KDP then reverted my reversion. I then reverted, asking KDP in my edit summary to come here, to the Talk page. He has not, reverting again, and quoting policy in his edit summary that is being inappropriately (in my opinion) applied. It is at least unsympathetic of you to say I am in a revert war. I have reverted twice, once each, against (on the face of it) two editors. KDP has reverted against me twice. I have left a message on his Talk page. No response. You say I am in "revert warS". Not quite one, just yet. Hyperbole. As I said to KDP, "I'll wait a day or two to discuss this and, failing that, revert." That is not revert warring! Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chris, pending some resolution of issues raised on Talk:Linux and elsewhere re what we're allowed to call the operating system variously referred to as one of "Linux", "Linux operating system" and "GNU/Linux", we should leave editing article space on these particular issues well alone. Therefore I intend to revert, once again, to the version which has been steady state / status quo for some time. We should "leave the damn thing alone until the issue on Talk:Linux is resolved". I ask that KDP and the anonymous editor responsible for this flare up join us in "refrain[ing] from contentious editing on this issue for the time being as an act of good faith". I will bring this sub-section to KDP's attention again. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care whether it's at the wrong version or not. If you want to act in bad faith and revert back to your own recent edit while falsely stating that this is a consensus version then all you're doing is making it less likely that you'll get your way in the end. I've already asked KDP not to rise to the bait and to resist the temptation to give you any more attention than your position demands (i.e. not a lot). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Again and again you fail to address the argument or listen to reason and resort to other tactics. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) KDP has just very recently written, contradicting his reasoning for reversion here: "Lit review shows us that GNU/Linux is used ~3% of the times that Linux is being referenced, that makes it a significant minority position (ie. not WP:FRINGE)". His reversion here therefore remains unjustified. I have invited him to comment here. He has not but has been active on WP.

(2) I do not act in bad faith and you tread close to the line (and against WP policy) by alleging that I do. You put words in my mouth: I have not said it is a consensus position. I simply said it is the status quo, agreeing with your post here, that we ought not to be editing the articles re Linux & GNU/Linux while the discussion is ongoing.

(3) I have *NOT* reverted to my own revision. You are wrong to say I did. All I did was revert to a stable [i.e. unchanged for weeks] version pending outcome of the discussion.

(4) Having waited long enough for KDP, I revert the 1st sentence back to that position, before the anon edit, and ignoring KDP's incorrect (by his own recent contradictory statement) quoting of inapplicable policy.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Less than ~3% makes it notable as a minority view. But it doesn't make it (according to WP:WEIGHT a significant minority position. And it certainly isn't a large enough minority that you can give it equal position in the lead. That is undue weight. And you know exactly why i haven't answered you. Because you are misrepresenting views, just as you did in the above. But ignore weight as much as you want - i'm going to uphold the truce, even though you didn't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What we on *our* side of this debate all agree on (I hesitate to say we but I am sure I am correct) as a *minimum* is that we are against the *elimination* of the term GNU/Linux from the encyclopedia and from all mention in articles re FOSS and free Unix-like operating systems. What was occurring was the systematic and undue near-elimination of the term from WP. The (temporary?) stopping of that is precisely the truce of which you speak. My edit was to prevent the removal of a mention of GNU/Linux from an article. That is the truce you have just said you wish to uphold, isn't it? Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. There's no "truce": there was an agreement by me that I would put the project on hold while there was ongoing discussion. I have not reverted to my version of articles because some anonymous user has "broken the truce" and reinserted the term in 20 or so articles. It didn't affect user:68.19.62.25, who was the person who edited this article in a way which provoked a revert from you. Furthermore, given your double-revert over where GNU/Linux should point to the other week, you're in no position to say that you've been holding off on contentious editing over the term. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As regards the GNU/Linux -> Linux edits I don't give a flying **** who is doing the edits. To me it matters not if it is you or some anonymous editor. The matter is being discussed. Pending some resolution of the issue(s) you've put your "project" on hold, so you tell us. You have suggested I do as you. I agree, but that doesn't mean that I should be happy if others carry it forward for you in some kind of unbidden sockpuppetry. As for your objection to the use of the word "truce" I tell you what: You suggest a term and I'll see if I like it. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We're evens then, it seems: I did a double revert over there and then I backed off (although without arguing over anyone's use of language or any grandstanding). KDP reverted here and you and he have backed off. Be happy. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Any restatement of your views I have made which you don't like I apologise for. Perhaps I would be better off saying. "Am I correct in understanding you to say" rather than "you must therefore be saying". Or if I am drawing a conclusing from two separate but related things you say, I should note so, similarly. However I have *not* set out deliberately to misrepresent your views or to draw undue conclusions from what you have said, and, I must add, I don't think I have. I would find it helpful were you to try and understand why it is I may have got it wrong - that I have misunderstood is not necessarily because I am bending the argument or that I am an idiot but just possibly because you have not been clear - and to aid understanding. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think undue offence is being generated one way only you are far from right. All I did here was revert an anonymous edit which violated the uneasy truce we had all seemed to settle for and which is in complete accord with the request Chris is complying with - to leave well alone pending some resolution: We are not making Linux vs GNU/Linux edits at the moment. I reverted an anonymous user who did just that. For you and Chris to represent this reversion as violating the truce is incorrect and I can't help but feel this is deliberate and I ask any other reader just to examine the edit history. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For the public record. It is Thumperward who goes around making false accusations and statements. Thumpeward acts in bad faith to editors who do not agree with his point of view (POV). He and a few other editors try to remove the terms GNU and GNU/linux from wikipedia. As long as an editor supports his cause he never criticizes him no matter if he breaks wikipedia civility rules WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE. But when an editor opposes his unjustified actions he or another editor encouraged by him start to make false accusations.--Grandscribe (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ubuntu screenshot not representative of linux distributions

The Ubuntu screenshot in the Linux disibution articles should nto be there on my opinion.

The fact is that Ubuntu is a Linux distribution, but a Linux distribution isn't necessarily Ubuntu.

Somehow this screenshot could be considered as some kind of easy advertising for Ubuntu that isn't that necessary and places other distributions at the state of secondary distros.

Ubuntu isn't the only popular distribution and doesn't have true reason of being represented as first screen to watch in an article. This would have been the same for other distros such as Fedora or Mandriva.

It would be better if the Ubuntu screenshot was not added to the Linux distribution page. This screenshot isn't useful and there are more than one popular distribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.53.12 (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, under this theory, there would be no distribution that would be representative. I'm not advocating for an Ubuntu screenshot, but I am trying to help decide what sort of screenshot should be used. — Val42 (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is a screenshot really necessary for this page? At least not of a linux distribution : this would privilege one distribution and leave others behind. I'm not in anything against Ubuntu, but I believe no linux distro should have its screenshot on top and alone. However, a solution could be what has been done on the french version of this article. See http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_Linux#Quelques_captures_d.27.C3.A9cran for exact reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.53.12 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just checked out the link that you provided. This does show screenshots of several of the prominent Linux distributions. This would be a good way to do it, but it wouldn't work in the introductory paragraph. — Val42 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

At the top of the page, if a screenshot must be added, then perhaps we could put a picture of Tux. But considering other languaes do not have any screenshot on the top of the page, I think adding several distribution's screenshot down the page of the article. I think that to understand what is a Linux distro, a good explanation worths more than a simple image. Is it all right for me to take off the Ubuntu screenshot?

I have added different distribution screenshots at the bottom of the page. In this way, it is absolutely impartial (at least it should). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.5.210 (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

MontaVista

I removed the references to MontaVista Software. The blurb in the "Well-known Linux distributions" section read like an ad, isn't well known by the public, and "MontaVista Software" isn't even a "distribution". (Heh, should "Linksys" be listed there too?) MontaVista is already listed under Embedded Linux and several other articles. I'm just documenting this here because it's been sitting on the page for about 3 months now. --Fo0bar (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Glogo-small.png

The image Image:Glogo-small.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Linux-Mint-Felicia.png
• Image:Mandriva logo.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Archlinux

Noticed the svg displaying all the different distros says Arch is forked from CRUX. This is untrue, Arch is an original distrobution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.101.134 (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Images of Puppy Linux and OpenGEU

This is an apology: in the screenshot section, I tried to add a screen shot of OpenGEU, but in doing so I accidentally removed the one of Puppy Linux. I have tried to recover it but failed.

Zoeblackmore (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Distribution lifecycle

This article seems to be about different linux distributions, their history and what they are -- are there any articles on what the process is that is used by these distributions in the creation? Things such as getting a kernel, getting people to submit code packages, building code packages, creating a master, bugtesting etc...? A sort of "Distribution lifecycle"? I am sure this varies from distribution to distribution, but there must be a common theme among them. 121.44.34.253 (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Slackware

"One can distinguish between commercially backed distributions, such as Fedora (Red Hat), openSUSE (Novell), Ubuntu (Canonical Ltd.), and Mandriva Linux and community distributions such as Debian and Gentoo, though there are other distributions that are driven neither by a corporation nor a community; perhaps most famously, Slackware.".

Then what is Slackware driven by, if it isn't by corporations or a community? That should be mentioned! --BiT (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Original research in OEM contracts section?

To me, the following, from the OEM contracts section seems like original research:

This limits Linux's market share: consumers are unaware that an alternative exists, they must make a conscious effort to use a different operating system, and they must either perform the actual installation themselves, or depend on support from a friend, relative, or computer professional.

Do we have any reliable sources that support these claims. I know that I have read any number of columnists speculating about this issue, but I haven't seen any "hard" data.—C45207 | Talk 22:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

\thank! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.179.191.127 (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

navigation box (navbox) talk

The eponymous template {{Linux distributions}} has a talk page at Template talk:Linux distributions

In particular I'd like to point out to the newest discussion at Template talk:Linux distributions#April_2010_anonymous_revamp. We've recently had the navbox format changed to be not just a top-10 list as it was before, instead it's significantly expanded, but again we're having issues deciding on the threshold. Input is welcome. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Linux Distribution

Should Mobile/tablet/netbook operating systems like android not be considered as Linux Distributions? should they not be mentioned in this article, especially with their growing user numbers IRWolfie- (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

They should be mentioned, but those only distributed as firmware are not distributions in the sense of this article, neither systems distributed nearly exclusively for professional development. --LPfi (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

large overlap between Linux and Linux distribution, merge?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I've closed this discussion, as the problem in question was mostly caused by this anonymous edit which cloned the entire history section into the distro article. The split is necessary because of the length of the parent article. Furthermore, "Linux-the-OS" is a notable concept outwith "distros", which are a mostly desktop-centric way of looking at things and therefore not altogether useful considering that desktops are really the least interesting area of Linux usage. I've undone the edit in question and it should now be obvious that the articles have different cores. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Linux distribution contains almost all of the content in Linux. The two ledes are worded differently but are essentially the same. If the two articles have the same subject and content, they should be merged. 'Linux' refers either to the kernel or a distribution, so I've proposed the merge to here, rather than to Linux (which is ambiguous).

Linux distribution: A Linux distribution is a member of the family of Unix-like operating systems built on top of the Linux kernel. Such distributions (often called distros for short) are Operating systems including a large collection of software applications such as word processors, spreadsheets, media players, and database applications.

Linux: Linux (commonly play /ˈlɪnəks/ lin-əks in English,[4][5] also pronounced /ˈlɪnʊks/ lin-uuks[6] in Europe) refers to the family of Unix-like computer operating systems using the Linux kernel.

strcat (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I support this, "Linux" even defined as "Linux OS" or "GNU/Linux" it's a bit of a fuzzy concept, it doesn't exist as such, it's only expressed in specific Linux distributions or as a custom built OS, but that's an extreme and rare case that doesn't get too much attention on Linux page either. man with one red shoe 18:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point, I support also. Although I admit article named "Linux" sounds better to me, but clarity is more important. --Sapeli (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Linux" sounds better, but an article with that name should be a disambiguation page or redirect to Linux kernel. Linux is a kernel, but the term is occasionally used to refer to a whole Linux-based operating system. Most reliable sources refer to a distribution as "GNU/Linux", "a Linux-based operating system" or "Linux distribution", not "a Linux". "GNU/Linux" or "GNU/Linux distribution" aren't correct for this article because it covers non-GNU based Linux distributions like Android, so "Linux distribution" appears to be the best choice. strcat (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. We should have only two articles. 1) "Linux" what is only about Linux operating system aka Linux kernel. 2) "Linux distributions" what is only about software systems distributed as finalized products. Now we have at least three articles 1) Linux kernel 2) GNU/Linux 3) Linux distribution and they are not technically accurate at all and even use technical terms as how marketing people like them to be used. The articles "Linux kernel" and "Distributions" should be revised and article "Linux" be removed and part of it to be joined to "Linux kernel" article. The Linux operating system (what everyone can download from kernel.org) is totally different area than whole software systems (distributions) using it. The difference (sorry, about car analogy) is same as having a article of specific car engine (Linux OS a.k.a Linux kernel) and article of dozens of cars using that car engine (software systems, a Linux distributions). Golftheman (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Linux-the-OS is a nebulous concept, I think it should at least be split in "Linux as a server OS", "Linux on the desktop", "Embedded Linux" (or better name for those concepts). And Linux on the desktop could contain some of the stuff that's in Linux distribution. man with one red shoe 13:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There can never be a full split. We're always going to need a master article of some sort. Nevertheless, I proposed a very similar general move of content to sub-articles to that at talk:Linux#The official site should not be kernel.org. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's where I saw the idea in the first place, I especially support an Embedded Linux page giving the wide spread of mobile and table devices that use the Linux kernel. (Server and Desktop are not that different considering that any desktop can be used as a server, and the other way round) man with one red shoe 14:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Chris, can you isolate your revert to not also remove the extensive fixes in the reference citations shown here. I am not sure how to do that without undoing all that you reverted. Thanks § Music Sorter § (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just re-run reflinks. It's not possible to selectively roll back only the problematic changes because numerous edits afterwards were to the added material. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that is why I am not sure how to do it. LOL. Thanks for fixing it. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pardus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardus_(operating_system) is a well known distribution in Turkey, it should be included in the article. --145.253.109.93 (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

With respect, this is a global encyclopedia, and being popular in one country alone does not make it popular everywhere. Do you have a source that can show that it is? - SudoGhost 12:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The public has an option?

In the section about obtaining a Windows refund, it starts off with "Consumers also have the option of obtaining a refund for unused OEM operating system software," but then goes on to explain how it's nearly impossible and there have been movements to try to get refunds, and you basically have to file a lawsuit in some cases. On top of that, Microsoft has recently changed their EULA to prevent refunds as far as I know, something which should be handled by country laws anyway. I believe the current status of laws in the U.S. requires you to return the computer if you don't accept the EULA, meaning it is completely impossible to reject Windows in the U.S. short of a lawsuit. An abysmal state of things, and it makes someone saying "you have an option!" laughable. I think this sentence should be completely replaced with something along the lines of, "Due to the laws in some countries, it can be nearly impossible to get a refund for Windows." True racketware, here. Yfrwlf (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Currently with Windows 7 you can not get a refund. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Android (operating system) in the list

An IP editor has been inserting Android as a Linux distribution, but according to reliable sources, including engineers at Google, Android is not a Linux distribution. "Google engineer Patrick Brady stated unambiguously that Android is not Linux." Unless there's some reliable sources can be used to show otherwise, I don't think it belongs on this page at all. If there are multiple reliable sources that commonly refer to it as a Linux distribution, then if it's listed on this article I think it should at minimum state this discrepancy between sources. - SudoGhost 05:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope the small section I have added resolves this issue.--RaviC (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Trisquel

Trisquel is listed in the graphic as branching off from Debian, but it's actually Ubuntu-based. Once you strip down Ubuntu the way Trisquel has, it's very similar to Debian but there are some differences (esp. in userland). ~ 130.132.157.189 (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Factual Errors; Article accuracy questionable; POV

Linux is derived from the common use of Linus Torvalds operating system kernel code, the core, then X Windows (graphics subsystem) clone is usually run on a desktop, then a Window Manager which performs GUI application environment. The latter 2 subsystems are not per se part of Linux. Also: 1.) Red Hat was dervived from a previous Linux Distribution. 2.) SCO Linux is derived from Microsoft selling Xenix (an AT&T authorized Unix v7 clone) 3.) didn't see μLinux or microLinux 4.) microprocessor Linux, microLinux, is the basis of Android, a Java based Presentation Interface displays programatic data. (Similar to Java Micro Edition, JME, runs atop smartphones with Symbian OS, or Cocoa Presentation Interface runs atop BSD in IOS devices.) 5.) No mention of Hurd? Didn't see Montavista Linux. 6.) "On 4 November 2003 Novell announced the acquisition of SuSE Linux AG at a price of US$ 210 million" on SUSE Wiki. Currently owned by Attachmate (IBM contributes). Basis of IBM (et al) Point of Sales systems which would alone put SUSE ahead of Red Hat. IBM uses SUSE as the basis of many of their open source offerings. Novell was a major contributor to Xen, and SUSE is the basis of many thin client desktops. 7.) Knoppix is the basis of many rescue disk and anti-virus recovery CDs, usage endemic on Widows PCs. How does that usage count? 8.) Question how data for Distributions was obtained, information not documented in chart source. Do I believe that that many devices are running Red Hat, NO. Do I believe that many servers are running Ubuntu, NO. Considering the households/businesses with Linux variants running on router and/or modem (Linksys Linux, WRT, Montavista, ...); a much higher percentage than Linux on PCs and Servers. 9.) Distribution Popularity seems based on "number of downloads" an very questionable number at best. I've usually purchased a Linux CD (e.g. Walnut Creek) or sent by vendor (Canonical, Turbolinux, which was not listed as distro but still top seller in Asia). My last Mint was 'Linux User and Developer' magazine and last Fedora was 'Linux Format' magazine DVD. Shjacks45 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

*sees Android being listed in the Examples section* What about Chrome OS?

In many ways, especially under the hood, Google's Chrome OS can actually be considered much more of a Linux distribution than Android is. Of course, there's a Linux kernel, but there's much more than that. There's a core command line interface. There's glibc. There's a full Bash (not just sh) shell (well, in developer mode anyway). There's GCC. There's Portage. And, most importantly, there's a full X server.

So why isn't Chrome OS listed in that section as well? It would make far more sense for Chrome OS to be included along with Android. Thank you. 2602:306:BCA6:AC60:A8D8:147B:58E3:E6C6 (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a Linux expert, but the Chrome OS article says it's based on Gentoo, so I filed Chromium and Chrome OS under Gentoo. Someone more knowledgeable should take a look. Pdxuser (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Layout - components schema

@Dsimic: Could you clarify why you moved the image showing components to the right? There is already a huge image to the right just above. For several resolutions (I would guess most), this causes the schema to display in the Package management section. How is the "resulting position of the subsection heding" "awkward"? --Chealer (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

As I've described it in the summary of my edit, that change made the layout a bit awkward due to the resulting position of the subsection heading; please have a look at a screenshot. As there isn't enough content to push the "Package management" heading below the image, it resulted in an awkward and unreadable placement. Putting a {{Clear}} wouldn't make it better either. I understand your intentions toward improving the placement of the image, but I'd say that the change unfortunately makes it worse than before. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I still fail to understand what is awkward. I can easily read the heading in your screenshot. --Chealer (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing, reading it isn't an issue, ;) but it just doesn't look good when subsections start to the right of an image. At the same time, it screws up the indentation of the {{See also}} link, which of course is a bug in MediaWiki. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The point was to fix the layout, not to make it look good per se, although it looks better with balanced sides than as it was. You have a point about See also, I had not noticed. I don't think that the impact is as bad as the consecutive images though. --Chealer (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've compared two layout variants a few times, and each time came with the conclusion that bunching images together is less worse than starting a subsection to the right of an image. At the same time, the image caption says that "a Linux distribution is usually built around a package management system, which puts together...", so it actually fits well into the "Package management" section. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)