Talk:GNewSense

GNU/Linux

I think that because gNewSense actually calls themselves a GNU/Linux project on their web site, that we should do so, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.105.128 (talk • contribs)

Jump in and make that change. Gronky 16:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkrogers (talk • contribs)

I'm reverting this. Articles are not written from the point of view of the subject. There's project-wide consensus (with a couple of extremely vocal opponents who are unresponsive to project norms) that the term Wikipedia uses is "Linux distribution" unless there's a specific reason not to, such as the "GNU/Linux" part actually being in the project name. Chris Cunningham 13:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. You point (elsewhere) to the kilometres of debate on Talk:Linux and it's archives - a raging dispute is not a sign of consenus, it is the exact opposite. --Gronky 19:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a "raging debate". Over the last two years Wikipedia has gotten much more consistent in using "Linux" over "GNU/Linux" in general, and both Talk:Linux and cross-article samples indicate that far fewer people fight "Linux" in general than "GNU/Linux". See Special:Whatlinkshere/GNU/Linux and Special:Whatlinkshere/GNU/Linux distribution and look at the number of articlespace pages linked. It's approximately zero. Only a handful of non-anonymous editors have resisted this move, the most vocal and active being yourself. What's more, you've shown zero inclination to address the matter from a project-wide consensus, instead choosing to revert individual moves towards this consensus wherever you see them. I'm not inclined to believe that this behaviour will change, nor will I stand by and let random articles be inconsistent because of it. Please take any replies to Talk:Linux where they belong. Chris Cunningham 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not true that "Wikipedia has gotten..." - Wikipedia didn't do anything, it was just you. One single editor with a lot of time. You systematically removed all "GNU/Linux" links - you even admit this on your userpage. There is no consensus on Talk:Linux to back this up and your other metrics are purely cyclical: I edited Wikipedia so reflect X, X is consensus because it's reflected in Wikipedia. --Gronky 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

While I'm no longer prepared to have this argument with this editor (after circa 18 months of circular arguments, flat-out denial of consensus and a general refusal to refrain from making edits which reduce Wikipedia's consistency even when the edits are clearly contentious), I'd encourage any other interested parties to check out both the archives of Talk:Linux and my own talk page for discussion and precedent. Arguing this piecemeal over individual pages with different editors (which has been User:Gronky's strategy for circumventing consensus thus far) isn't worth my time, nor does it help casual editors to see the whole picture. Chris Cunningham 00:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if there *was* a consensus on Wikipedia, which there isn't, this is still a controversial topic in practice. Arguing that the even the distros that refer to themselves as GNU/Linux shouldn't be called GNU/Linux distributions in their article's opening paragraph is absurd. Your consensus claims are especially absurd when you explicitly state that you've been on a naming crusade on your user page. Chandon 04:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course there's consensus; the existence of random editors who are opposed to it in principle doesn't negate that the project as a whole has generally sided with using "Linux". And as I've said several times, articles are not written from the point of view of their subjects. If you want to say "gNewSense describes itself as a GNU/Linux distribution" then that's probably alright, and would certainly help to explain why it's bucking consensus, but it violates NPOV to go rewriting the article because the subject happens to have a different opinion. Chris Cunningham 07:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bringing out the actual differences

I think this article needs more about what no non-free software means in practice - ie what isn't included. We need to differentiate between gNewSense and Ubuntu - what Ubuntu's binary blobs do, and why they chose to include them. Without this it isn't obvious why gNewSense exists. Secretlondon 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ubuntu-Libre

Does the section about Ubuntu-libre belong here? It doesn't seem directly connected to gNewSense. Perhaps it should be moved (partially) to Ubuntu (Linux distribution). Superm401 - Talk 01:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It does belong - gNewSense is what became of the Ubuntu libre idea. I certainly thought that it was just a name change - the history of the two are intertwined. Secretlondon 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving the section. I am not sure whether Secretlondon's explanation convinces me, but one shouldn't have to consult the Talk page to understand what the section is doing in the article. Explaining may be sufficient to give the section a second chance. --Chealer 00:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ubuntu-libre

Ubuntu-libre was an attempt to create an official free software derivation of the Ubuntu operating system. The goal was to guard users' freedom by including only free software components in the default installation, as well as the default software installation channels. The derivation was originally proposed by Mark Shuttleworth under the name Gnubuntu.

The original plan for creating Ubuntu-libre was to include the default free software Ubuntu components (main and universe) while excluding the non-free components (restricted and multiverse). However, the source repository of the Ubuntu main component contains the full Linux source package, which contains non-free firmware. Thus creating Ubuntu-libre would have required some changes to the Ubuntu base. Otherwise, Ubuntu-libre would have failed in its goal of containing only free software.

gnuisance

Where was the spelling "gnuisance" every used to describe this description. I used the term in the pre-planning stages but don't remember ever hearing the term publicly. If it's not precedented, let's remove it. —mako (talk•contribs) 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove this. If someone comes up with a reference, please revert my edit. —mako (talk•contribs) 22:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

do you so any research at all? See here http://www.gnewsense.org/FAQ/FAQ#toc4 --MarSch 09:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorsement by FSF

I added a reference yesterday to an FSF announcement and endorsement of Gnewsense and removed the {{fact}} tag. Chealer readded it today without an explanation in the edit summary. I've just come from the FSF members meeting where the FSF was handing out Gnewsense CDs. They've supported them with server space and Richard Stallman regularly points people to them. Enough of this was, IMHO, in the reference currently no that sentnece. Please explain why the current reference is insufficient and I'll be happy to dig something up. —mako (talk•contribs) 13:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Providing server space and more clearly shows that the FSF supports GNewSense, I don't question that. Handing CDs doesn't meant that you endorse the product contained. I have handed Windows CDs myself multiple times and would never say that I endorse Windows, I simply support friends. The FSF clearly supports GNewSense and people getting the CDs by handing CDs, but that doesn't mean the FSF endorses GNewSense. So, the reference is insufficient because it doesn't talk about any endorsement, and there is nothing which implies that the FSF endorses GNewSense.--Chealer 00:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.--Chealer 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Distributing CDs is public support - I presume you were not promoting windows. The last two sentences don't make any sense to me. Secretlondon 08:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference says "the Free Software Foundation has announced sponsorship of the project." That's good enough for me. Secretlondon 08:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First, the FSF has a track record of being very conservative in these regard. They stopped listing Debian on their website because the Debian website provided information about enabling the non-free repository and they felt that this would be a tacit endorsement of non-free software. The FSF refuses to distribute Debian and even Ubuntu CDs or to even recommend their use. More importantly though, they are sponsoring the developing gNewSense! If you were to to give a CD to someone, that might not be an endorsement but if you decided to financially support the development of that product, you're going to have a very hard timing getting to believe that. —mako (talk•contribs) 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've simply removed the term "endorsement" from the sentence in question. Hopefully everyone can live with this. —mako (talk•contribs) 22:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

GNU/Linux is a fine name

The article said that gNewSense is a GNU/Linux distribution. The "GNU/" has been removed by User:Thumperward. I restored the original, fine name, but it's be removed again. I don't have time for an edit war, but I want to note that removing the "GNU/" is wrong - it is a valid name and there is no justification for changing a valid name. --Gronky 11:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Per years of discussion on Talk:Linux and elsewhere (which the user in question is not only privy to, but one of the most active participants of), Wikipedia should be internally consistent, and should reflect real-world nomenclature. "Linux distribution" is the term used by most to refer to Linux/GNU/X/Nvidia blob bundles, and thus Wikipedia should not randomly deviate from using the term "Linux distribution". Nor are Wikipedia articles written from the point of view of the subject, so this isn't an exception to that rule. There's possibility of confusion by omission, and there is a possibility of confusion by inclusion. Chris Cunningham 11:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those terms which people have strong feelings about - I've encountered both terms used, though Linux is probably more common than GNU/Linux. Richard Stallman uses the latter term to emphasise that much of the software in a typical distribution comes from the GNU Project - technically, Linux refers to the kernel. Autarch 10:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the history of the naming conflict. I'd disagree that "technically Linux refers to the kernel", because that's implicitly taking sides: that the kernel is also called Linux is undisputed, but that doesn't imply it's exclusively called Linux. The X consortium didn't try to impose an "X" on the name of graphical systems which adopted it even though Stallman explicitly co-opted X to be a part of GNU; the moral of the story is that there's no obligation - technical, legal, or indeed moral - to include the names of projects one co-opts into the name of one's own project. As such, we should go by the common name and be consistent about it, with appropriate explanation of the issue in those few venues (such as the intro paragraphs to Linux) where clarity expects it. Chris Cunningham 12:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Alive?

So how alive is this project? Is it stable enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.51.160.142 (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham or the modern day

The purpose of an a true Encyclopaedia should always be to tell the truth. Ordinary people who use an Encyclopaedia seek knowledge. It has happened throughout history that it is not always what the majority thinks that is right or true. A few centuries ago most people thought the Earth was flat. Some people thought that some human races were better than others. Other said the Sun was circling around the Earth. What kind of an Encyclopaedia would someone have produced in those days if one had to write only accoding to what the majority think of a certain subjec no matter how misinformed or ignorant most people were regarding that subjec?

I have seen that there is a user of wikipedia called Chris Cunningham alias "Thumperward" who has taken the position regarding the use of the words GNU/Linux that this online Encyclopaedia should only use the word Linux because according to him that is the most widely used word to refer to the operating system that Richard Stallman started to create based on UNIX in the early 1980s.

It is very unfortunate that with people, such as the very young Mr.Cunningham who was only in diapers when Mr. Stallman was working very hard to contribute to society, come to wikipedia and contribute only to deteriorate the quality of the information available on this online attempt to build and encyclopaedia that could be respected.

It is very clear that Mr. Cunningham does not have an impartial view on this subject. He makes one think of those people several hundred years ago who thought of themselves as wise and learned who would send to jail anyone who dared to say or write anything opposed to their ideas such as that the Earth was the center of the Universe, or that it was flat. People who wrote books containing ideas oposed to what the majority thought would have seen their books burned. The authors sent to jail or even sentenced to death.

Mr. Cunningham is the modern day version of such people willing and ready to jump in and delete every word that does not conform to his narrow minded and partialized view of a subject that has been around much longer than himself.

Mr. Cunnighma would have been the perfect employee for the Roman Inquisition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightedbulb (talk • contribs) 10:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please have a read of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and please keep your postings on articles' talk pages on-topic. Thanks, Technobadger (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's alright, I'm used to it by now. The archives of Talk:Linux reflect the general project consensus on the name in question, and I think this tirade reflects more poorly on its author than it does on me. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't worry, once Lightedbulb realises that they can't win, they'll stop trying. I had the same thing when I reverted their GNU/Linux edits on the Linux article - they went on at me about GNU and FSF and Linux like I was stupid (which I should point out, I'm not). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is insane... is there any way of finally clarifying what the official wikipedia policy on linux naming is? I can't believe I've just read such an outrageous personal attack purely on the basis of somebody's opinion on how to name an Operating System. This is just crazy. Is there any way we can alert an admin to this?Petemyers (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You could make a comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, although it is not part of the official dispute resolution process, and that is meant to be followed through before posting there. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no "official position" other than that reached by community consensus. It could theoretically change in future. But there hasn't been any serious discussion about changing this for quite some time. I don't really think this is something which requires wider administrative intervention; the user has already been warned. User:Prolog, who reverted the editor recently, is an admin anyway. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The intro of GNU/Linux clearly says that "GNU/Linux" is one of two acceptable names. --Gronky (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is not whether or not "GNU/Linux" is a valid term, which is not being disputed here - it is whether we should use "Linux" throughout Wikipedia or "GNU/Linux" throughout Wikipedia. It would be untidy to use "GNU/Linux" in one place, and then use "Linux" in another place. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And further, articles are not written from the POV of their subjects. The North Korean government doesn't use the term "North Korea", but nevertheless Wikipedia uses it consistently. Arguably the North Korean government has a much stronger argument for the use of the country's official name than those editors arguing for "GNU/Linux" based not on any official document but on the basis of the opinion of the FSF. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I prefer the usage "GNU/Linux", and used it in some earlier edits, but the argument for consistency across WP is valid. Technobadger (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sun Microsystems uses the name GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system.

It is very ridiculous that wikipedia user Thumperward (= Chris Cunningham) tries to eliminate any reference to GNU/Linux from the entire wikipedia when his own employer Sun Microsystems uses GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system! Mr.Cunningham why don't you start by deleting every mention of GNU/Linux from you own company's website?

Start by going to this one that has the Title:

"Sun's GNU/Linux Offerings"

http://www.sun.com/software/linux/

In it your employer Sun itself says:

"Sun is one of the largest contributors to the GNU/Linux operating system"