Talk:Parabola GNU/Linux-libre

Deletion - Why?

What is the reason for the proposed deletion? The subject seems to be notable, so I assume that's not it. As of Mon Jan 16 2012, it has "parabola gnu/linux" has 148,000 google hits not hosted by the parabola project ("parabola gnu/linux" -site:parabolagnulinux.org). It's also important to the free software movement, being listed as one of the FSF/GNU project's recommended Free GNU/Linux distributions at http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html - it's also important within the Yeeloong user community as it is the only free distribution currently installable on the platform, as while as one of only two distributions that take full advantage of the hardware.
-- Djbclark (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Two points for you. 1. On Wikipedia notability means something very specific, so please read WP:N to understand that first and 2. the deletion discussion is not going on on this page, but over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parabola GNU/Linux instead. - Ahunt (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of non-partiality

I am affiliated with Parabola, and am editing the article. I am making edits that are NPOV; primarily editing for clarity.

I also removed the patently false claim that the first release was in September 2011. This claim cited DistroWatch, from my reading of the DistroWatch page it isn't clear that it's claiming that that was the *first* release. Even if that is what the page is claiming, it is false. I first installed it in May 2011, and it was added to the GLDT in February 2011.

Any edits that I believe may be WP:COI I will bring up here first.

~ 10nitro (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for posting here. - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. ~ LukeShu (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I should probably declare that I have changed my username to "LukeShu"; I am the same person as "10nitro", I am not trying to deceive anyone. ~ LukeShu (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox kernel

User:Ahunt reverted an edit by 186.176.28.49 that replaced Linux with GNU/Linux and such. In general, I agree with this, I accept that "Linux" is POV. However, one of the changes was the Kernel Type cell in the infobox. 186.176.28.49 changed it to "Monolithic (Linux-libre)", and Ahunt changed it back to "Monolithic (Linux kernel)". I'd argue that Linux-libre is a derivative of the mainline Linux kernel, and that it would be better to use Linux-libre, as this is a notable aspect of the distribution. ~ 10nitro (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay I agree and will fix it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop doing this!

You can't change what a thing is just because Wikipedia have certain policies, Parabola isn't a "Linux Distribution", Parabola doesn't use a "free and open source model", that isn't fair, that's wrong, you should respect what we are as a project and dont take away our identity!. 186.176.28.49 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

First off you should read WP:COI, because it sounds like you are affiliated with the subject of this article. Next you should understand that by consensus Wikipedia does not use the term "GNU/Linux" because it is a POV term. We use the more common term Linux or Linux distribution to describe operating systems based on the Linux kernel. This is not your project website so you can't just show up here and demand that Wikipedia reflect your policies and your views. Your project has its own website for those purposes. - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So, Wikipedia can change what we are just because POV and other Wikipedia policies? It sounds like you can lie to the masses with hungry of knowledge with a justification of "everything should fit to perfection" instead of keep the thing real!... 186.176.28.49 (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is committed to neutrality and is not here to give you space to advertise your personal point of view. For more on this particular issue see Talk:GNewSense#GNU.2FLinux_system_and_GNU.2FLinux_distro. - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on!, my POV? neutrality? for Wikipedia, neutrality means what the majority POV. and the majority then can decided what stuff is what even if it's wrong or right. even gnewSense isn't a "Linux Distribution" its a GNU/Linux Distribution, there isn't "Linux Operating system" there is a kernel and a OS, and that is a historical fact, isn't my POV. The majority should respect what we are and stop doing vandalism to our wiki articles, for God sake :-/ 186.176.28.49 (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not "your wiki article". See WP:OWN. - Ahunt (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

No, is "our wiki article", the people whom had direct relation with the topic. Please respect what we are and what we intent to represent!. 186.176.28.49 (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"What we intent to represent" is for your website. Following Wikipedia standards is for this website. The standard is to use the most commonly used names for things, which is the same as is done on the articles of all other Linux distributions. I've added a see also link to GNU/Linux naming controversy. 00:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yworo (talk • contribs)

This is an absolutely disaster 186.176.28.49 (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you came to Wikipedia with unrealistic expectations. From your above comments if would seem that you believe that Wikipedia is a sort of web-hosting service where you can post an article on any subject, even if it has no third party references and that it will be your article that only you can edit or have any say on content. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, as it is an encyclopedia, not "MySpace". If it did work that way millions of people would have created articles on Lint I found in my pocket this afternoon (non-notable subject with no third party refs) and forbid anyone from editing or deleting it. As User:Yworo has tried to explain Wikipedia has community standards, which is the only thing that makes it an encyclopedia and not a blog. Currently this article doesn't meet those standards and seems likely to be deleted as a result. That isn't a "disaster", that is just the application of standards to the process of creating articles. - Ahunt (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Unneeded screenshot

Is the screenshot really needed? Parabola is supposed to be a distribution you can build the way you like, therefore it looks the way people want it to look like.

I don't think a screenshot is relevant, like it would be for Windows, Ubuntu or Mac OS X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunavorax (talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally on Wikipedia operating system articles we include a screenshot of the default desktop, just for illustrative and comparative purposes.. - Ahunt (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand what Lunavorax is saying though, and I kind of agree. Parabola is like Arch Linux; there is no default desktop. After the base install (which itself varies from person to person), xorg-server isn't even installed by default, let alone openbox (which is only 1 of the 29 base Desktop Environments and Window Managers that could be used), so the image is by no means representative of a typical install. I think a screenshot of the install process would probably be a better image for the article, that's really the only constant. - SudoGhost 21:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well if there is no default desktop installation then, I agree, that we should have the nearest equivalent, either a typical installation or of the installation process. I don't think we should have no screenshot - anything that will help show the reader something about the distro is better than nothing. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot is showing Parabola as a nerd system. Completely misunderstandable visualization of a comfortable system, demonstrating more nerdiness and alienating people. Like showing pic of a broken leg to sell sausages ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.30.205 (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

So what is your point? Do you have an alternative image in mind? - Ahunt (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)