Talk:Linux

history

The history section is not that good ...

It seems to imply that for linux to use bash and such, i'd have to be GPL'd. As far as I know, that is not true ... Would someone more knowledgeable please comment ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cold Light (talk • contribs) 07:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "it'd", "I'd", or someting else? Mike92591 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a legitimate question, GPL tools can be used even in Windows. I re-wrote that paragraph, hope this is OK. man with one red shoe (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the issue with the GPL would be to do with linking parts of the GNU C library and things like that. Running the GNU user utilities like bash does not require a kernel that is compatible with the GPL. -- Borb (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there's some truth to that, but that doesn't necessary require a GPL kernel, doesn't BSD use GNU C library? Besides, in the reference provided Linus quote is "The Linux copyright will change: I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft, removing the “you may not distribute it for money” condition. I agree. [...]" I tried to keep it like that without going too deep into why the compatibility was requested: to satisfy GPL or to make it possible to distribute the agregate for money. I prefer not to interpret the reason, just to present the clear fact: "Linux switched to GPL" man with one red shoe (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that all this complexity of which we speak pertains to developers and distributors, not end users. This discussion is irrelevant for the average user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.236.220 (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Image in paragraph "server and supercomputers"

The abovementioned picture is called "Wikipedia's server with Linux". I see no evidence that this picture has something to do or is depicting wikipedia's servers. That may be my fault, though. Cheers, --77.186.152.227 (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the servers are labeled "Linux", but the image info doesn't seem to indicate that they belong to Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the cited source claims that the image is from 2000, which fits with the time VA Linux made servers, but not well with Wikipedia. I think it's safe to assume it's not Wikipedia's servers. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest Wikipedia is currently switching all its servers to Ubuntu server edition from a mix of Fedora and Red Hat. ref - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the above info, I have fixed the caption to make it more general. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Discussion moved to /Name#Requested move - October 2008, and section header changed to respect templated link from Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What is this article about?

It seems that this article is losing its focus. What is it actually about? It's not about the Linux kernel, because there is another article for that. What then? Every operating system that currently uses the Linux kernel? And every combination of those? (ie. "Linux distributions"). Is this article supposed to cover everything that people call Linux? Here is a list of all the things people might call Linux:

• The Linux kernel
• A GNU/Linux distribution (eg. Debian GNU/Linux)
• The operating system of a mobile phone (eg. Android)
• The operating system of other embedded devices like routers (eg. DD-WRT)

I think that is just too much to cover in one article. Debian GNU/Linux is so different to Android, and equally to DD-WRT. The only thing all of these things have in common is the Linux kernel. So it seems this article is about anything and everything that uses Linux, apart from Linux itself! The problem is that the general public seem to call anything that uses the Linux kernel, "Linux". "Linux distribution" is used pretty consistently to refer to a GNU/Linux distribution, though.

I would like to suggest that this page is disambiguated. This came up before in the talks about the name of the page. As it stands, neither "Linux" nor "GNU/Linux" are the correct names for the content on this page. Instead I think the content needs to be split into different pages: Linux kernel (already exists), Linux distribution (aka GNU/Linux distribution, but the former is most common) and Android (very significant now).

The page Embedded_Linux already exists, and while I'm not too sure about the content it shows that the disambiguation is already happening. At this rate we're just going to end up with a lot of redundancy unless this page is disambiguated. I think the suggestion was to turn it into a summary style article. I think this would be much better than the jack of all trades article it is trying to be now. -- Borb (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I too want the answer to this question. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that people claim this this is about the gerneric OS that uses Linux as its kernel. I personally think that this page should not exist as it is, the information should be split to "Linux kernel", "Linux distribution" and "Embedded Linux". "Linux" should probably redirect to "Linux distribution" since that's the most common use of the term. There should be a dab link on Linux distribution that links to kernel article. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

6 months ago I would have agreed with the redirect to Linux Distribution, but now with the rising popularity of things like Android, Linux Distribution being the most common use is under threat. I stick with complete disambiguation or a summary style article (which the current article is leaning towards anyway, it just needs a diet). -- Borb (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If people want info about Android they are more likely to search for "Android" not for "Linux" man with one red shoe (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if they are looking for info about Android. But they might read somewhere that Android uses Linux and then look up "Linux" on Wikipedia, the redirection to "Linux distribution" is wrong in that case and quite confusing. Maybe the standard "Linux redirects here, for the kernel used by ... see Linux kernel" header will be ok to avoid confusion, though. -- Borb (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If they read that is based on Linux and arrive to this page they will have a chance to read about Linux use in embedded devices here: Linux#Embedded_devices, there's also a dab link to Linux kernel on top of the page. -- man with one red shoe 17:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This article should be only about Linux. The Monolith kernel a.k.a Operating System called Linux. Not about GNU/Linux development platform or Android software platform, because both use the Linux OS. This article makes resumption that Linux is just like a microkernel. The history part is important but it should be actually arrage again about what belongs where. Currently this article is mixing lots of different things what does not belong to Linux article. We should slice this article for Linux (the kernel / operating system) and GNU project (GNU development tools used to develop Linux and other System applications etc) Golftheman (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

"This article makes resumption that Linux is just like a microkernel" Actually, interestingly, Linus Torvalds considers UNIX to be a microkernel ie. everything that can reasonably be expected to be in the kernel is, and everything else is out. He considers Minix etc. to be "taking it too far". Therefore he does consider GNU/Linux to be the name of the OS and Linux the microkernel, but then later says that he doesn't think the system should be called GNU. The distinction between micro and monolothic kernel seems to be a huge grey area.

Anyway, back on topic, I agree that Linux and GNU should be separate. GNU already has an article. However, they are very intertwined, most Linux systems use GNU and most GNU systems use Linux (and neither would work without the other). So then the possibility of a GNU/Linux article raises it's head again... And since people will be opposed to calling that GNU/Linux (rather, Linux) then we're back to the current situation. I'm not really sure what to suggest. -- Borb (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ps. Linus makes the microkernel statement in this speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTWCPoUt8w He says it in the second half of the video during questions, but I recommend listening to the whole speech because it's quite interesting and fun. -- Borb (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article should be about the kernel, Linux. This is very confusing. Please somebody do fix it! 85.131.31.100 (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

About screenshots

Who said that php and mysql is a part of Linux ecosystem? Who put the gnome mockups as screenshots of gnome 2.0? Looks like school noob tried to tell people about Linux. Please, make the article "about Linux", not about related things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redchrom (talk • contribs) 05:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

History section again

I don't know why, but the History section had seriously devolved from something containing a lot of useful and interesting details about the History of this thing called Linux, into this, which was completely opaque, uninformative, over-sectioned, and directionless.

Folks, at some point you have to let go of the "OMG IT'S NOT A KERNEL" and "OMG IT'S NOT GNU" and focus on writing a good, interesting, informative article. Think about it from the perspective of showing the article to your barely-computer-literate mother. Would she understand? If you take out the historical context behind why Linux was created, then the History section itself becomes completely meaningless. Linking to a separate History of Linux article and leaving it at that isn't enough -- you still need to tell the story.

I've restored the History section to as it stood about a month ago. If you (and by you, I mainly mean User:Gronky, who is responsible for most of the edits here) believe that the History section should be short, uninformative and over-sectioned, please explain why here on the talk page.

Also, there seems to be some recent disagreement as to whether a "Year of the Linux desktop" section belongs here. I don't think it does. This might be an interesting topic to cover in a couple of sentences in the "Market share and uptake" section further down, but it's not vital to explaining the history of the operating system itself. Warren -talk- 22:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you reverted a month worth of work on the history section. I don't like the variant you support there are many issues, but take for example Minix there's probably more info on something not directly relevant to Linux than there's on Minix own article. Not to mention that there are lots of factoids in the history about intentions of Linus or Stallman that have no place in an encyclopedia, we should promote facts not factoids. man with one red shoe (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, don't single out Gronky like that. S/He really had little to do with the resent changes to the history section (no disrespect to Gronky). As something with a main article, I think it should get to the point in a reasonable length. So yes, I do think it should be short. For the "over-sectioned" property, sectioning it like that has it's advantages. One being that there are less ways to get the idea that GNU isn't being credited. Mike92591 (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does the History section begin with the creation of the Linux kernel? Stallman declared his intent to create a free Unix-like system eight years earlier. Is there a reason why the history is not in chronological order? Sjmcd (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it's pre-creation history is covered better in History of Linux. Mike92591 (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Because not everybody subscribes to the idea that Linux kernel was added to GNU tools to create an OS, the majority consider that GNU tools were added to Linux kernel to create an OS (especially considering that Linux worked first with Minix userland) thus the history is presented starting with the core, the kernel, not when the compiler or things like "ls", "grep", "less", etc were written. Of course you can have different opinions, feel free to push them here, that's what Wikipedia is for, right? man with one red shoe (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you are forgetting one tiny thing: gcc. Linus Torvalds has said that without gcc Linux wouldn't have been possible. And he has also said that if the GNU kernel was available he wouldn't have started Linux. The history of "Linux" definitely starts with GNU (and Minix).

Besides all of this combined with what I posted above (which nobody seems to have anything to say about) means that this is quickly becoming one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. We really need to sort this out, people. -- Borb (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I didn't forget the compiler since I mentioned it just above your post, please be kind to read the post before you answer. Also, please tell me which other Operating System history starts with the compiler? man with one red shoe (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for not noticing that you wrote "the compiler". And all UNIX and UNIX-like systems include a compiler collection which can compile the whole system. You seem to think that these things (compiler, ls, grep etc.) are just accessories but they are essential parts of a UNIX or UNIX-like operating system. If you're going to talk about "Linux" as being a complete UNIX-like then the history starts with the first piece of UNIX that was written. -- Borb (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - but not all Unixen include a compiler-collection, thats a seperate add-on. And there is no guarantee that it could compile the whole system. (which in fact in most cases is completely impossible to check, since most people/organizations/companies have the amount of cash and backing that is required to get a source licence). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems a C compiler is not part UNIX, but a fortran-77 compiler is. Anyway, even if gcc isn't required to form a UNIX-like OS, the other parts of GNU are. Therefore "Linux" (in the sense of a whole OS) was started before the kernel was. -- Borb (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

GCC wasn't really needed, code generated by a non-free compiler from free code is still free. Regardless, the system in its practical form really started around 1992. The rest isn't all that important and is better covered in History of Linux. Mike92591 (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't all that important? Are you serious? You think that the rest of UNIX would have just magically appeared as a kernel existed? Andrew Tanenbaum said this once "It took them two years. But they produced not only the kernel, but the C compiler, shell, and ALL the UNIX utilities. This is far more work than just making a kernel. It is likely that the kernel took less than a man-year." [1] Which means he estimates the kernel to be only 1/6 of a complete UNIX system. If you think the other stuff does not matter than you're clearly very mistaken. -- Borb (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

He isn't talking about Linux - but Coherent (and in a quite different environment). And you are (deliberately?) implying that the C compiler is a necessary component of the OS. I'm sorry - but it isn't. As Mike above says - Linus' could've used a commercial compiler (if he had access to one), and the OS would still be the same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I know he's not talking about Linux and I'm not talking about a C compiler either. I'm talking about "the rest" ie. the other programs that are required by UNIX other than the kernel. I quote Tanenbaum because he says that "the rest" probably takes a lot longer to produce than the kernel. And besides, I think Linux does actually rely on gcc because a) it uses gcc C extensions and b) Linus ported gcc to run on Linux so that Linux could compile itself (ie. be self hosted). He couldn't have done that with a proprietary compiler. -- Borb (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The C compiler was probably the one that took the most time in the Coherent timeline - and its not required in an OS. Linus could have done it with a proprietary compiler - since Intel at the time made a compiler that was OS independent. (they probably still do) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The non-kernel components are important but their little histories aren't important enough for the main article. IMHO, It makes more sense to cut to the chase. Mike92591 (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

the kernel is equally important to the userland tools. Both would be worthless without the other. I dont buy that GNU had everything but a kernel, nor do i buy that kernel could possible be 'the most important thing in an OS, you cant forget X11, UNIX foundations, and the massive userland that at least now exists. Stop bickering and make a decent article Scientus (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That's easier said than done :). I'd also like to point out that a kernel is useful without userland components (after all, the userland components are built on top of the kernel). More to the point, this section should just be a brief of history and, what some are proposing just seems to add information better put somewhere else. Mike92591 (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

More of the same

We're still about 4k short of where we were before the history was rewritten (both literally and figuratively, so to speak), and I can't actually see what benefit this rewrite had.

The old version started with UNIX and included a reasonable level of detail on MINIX, both of which were very important predecessors of the system. WP:SUMMARY provides guidelines on how much of a section to leave when creating sub-articles - it says to leave about a third of the length of the split section in the summary article, not as little as one can get away with.

In addition, the entire Programming section seems to have vanished, and we seem to have gained the questionable image: GNU Linux.png, which doesn't appear to be of any established notability and comes from a site which uses Wikipedia as a source. As I don't see any rationale for these changes, I've restored the sections in question from where we were at the end of September. Edits should be discussed in detail before this is so heavily changed in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Year of Linux

The section disappeared. I think it was notable enough to let it include.--Kozuch (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It duplicated the same section in Desktop Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

WTF Penguin?!?

Mac has a freakin' apple, at least that makes sense, but what does Linux have, a penguin just sitting there, waiting to become sober? 10/22/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by L1QU1D5N4KE (talk • contribs) 20:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For the answer to this question see Tux - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking "GNU/Linux" in the intro

This should be removed again. Firstly, wikilinks should not be bolded in the article body. Secondly, the whole point of the lede is to act as a summary of the article: it's is implied that anything mentioned in the lede will be covered in more detail in the article body, and the table of contents makes it simple to find the section in question. As this link does not help to build the web by linking to other articles, I believe it should be removed again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Done. man with one red shoe (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Self links can be confusing. swaq 16:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Linux distribution

Since I see that Grandscribe has been changing most of the references from "Linux" to "Linux distributions" (which I support because it makes sense where he did) I started to wonder how is this article about something else than Linux distribution article? Why couldn't they be merged? Any strong argument against? man with one red shoe 09:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My take is that this article is a summary article on Linux in general, where subarticles such as Linux kernel, Linux distribution etc. are summarized. For indepth coverage of various subjects - you go to the subarticles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree - that was the intent of this article - an overview of Linux to tie together the related articles. It shouldn't be merged into Linux distributions and Grandscribe's changes should be reverted. - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the changes made. Now i have, i find several of them rather problematic, as they seem to indicate that (for instance) a linux system is the same as a linux distribution. This change: "Today Linux is used in numerous domains, from embedded systems to supercomputers," => "Today Linux distributions are used in numerous domains, from embedded systems to supercomputers," makes no sense at all. Since its rather seldom that its a distribution that runs on either of the two. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted those changes. The accuracy of those statements as amended needs to be debated along with the point made above by User:man with one red shoe that these changes really alter the aim of this article from talking about Linux in general to Linux distributions, which is a different subject altogether. - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What makes no sense is the unnecessary confusion that is created in readers minds. Any careful examination of the paragraphs will reveal that the word Linux is overused. Sometimes as much as once per sentence in a careless and very imprecise way. For example in some paragraphs the text clearly refers to various different components that are not part of the kernel yet they are referred as "Linux". The overuse of the word Linux misleads by being completely inaccurate. A first time or novice reader is left wondering if what is being explained is part of the kernel or not? It also leads readers to imagine that the full operating system is a unity as if it was a single product when in fact it is the result of the combination of many different and completely independent software packages and projects that are not necessarily related with the development of that part of the system that is the kernel. That is the program that is apropriately known as Linux.

Much of the text covered in this article does refer to what is a Linux distribution. If you sincerely want to make Wikipedia a reliable and trustworthy source you would give it a great service by beginning to write more precise and objective texts for the articles like this one. --Grandscribe (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is probably a lot of improvements that can be made to the article. I disagree that generally calling Linux systems distributions is an improvement - in fact i consider it the opposite. A distribution is something that you install from - not the system that you run. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We will work on that then. Point by point. A good way to start making improvements to this article is by avoiding the use of confusing over generalizations and over simplifications.--Grandscribe (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is between this three articles, Linux, Linux kernel and Linux distribution. This article (Linux) is about a generic term (as it says in the first line) that refers to GNU/Linux, but the kernel it self is named Linux, so there is a problem between the article Linux and Linux kernel. I propose that this article should redirect to Linux (disambiguation) and merge the content between Linux distribution and Linux kernel. --KDesk (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Version numbers

I see Linux version numbers in the infobox, although the article states that it is not about the kernel. I think N/A would be much better.

All too often people claim having problems with Linux 8.10 or the like. We should not add to the confusion. The distributions have version numbers, the kernel has and the different programs have, but there is no authority giving numbers to the "Linux OS" this article claims to be about.

--LPfi (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While the article is not directly about the kernel, it's not like it's a separate and irrelevant issue. If you remove info about the Linux kernel in this article what does it remain? What will we describe in this page? This article is about the OS based on Linux kernel, that's what we talk about, thus the kernel version number is highly relevant. Oh, and by the way, hearsay and what mistakes people makes on the Interwabs is not relevant for an encyclopedia. man with one red shoe 14:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The kernel is certainly relevant for the article, yes. If the infobox said "latest version of the kernel" it would be relevant and correct (that is why I pointed it out here instead of removing the numbers). Now it reads more or less "This article is not about the kernel but about the OS. The latest release is 2.6.xx", which clearly suggests that it is the OS version numbers that are cited. Those who recognize the numbers as kernel version numbers are not mislead, but anyone new to Linux is.

And what mistakes people do is relevant for an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia should point out common misunderstandings and put its words so that they cannot be mistaken as supporting the misconceptions.

--LPfi (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Tux then? This discussion was carried over and over again, it has decided to keep Tux and kernel version there because they are relevant, if you want you can change the text to make it clear. As for some mistakes that people make on forums is irrelevant, Wikipedia is about relevant source and encyclopedic information, the fact that you've seen a random person on a random page saying that they use Linux 8.10 is just as relevant as hearing your kid saying I don't know what idiocy and then rushing over to make it clear on Wikipedia that is not so. Remember, the key words are "reliable sources" that's what matters here. man with one red shoe 13:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be solved as simply as changing the infobox where it says "Latest stable release: 2.6.28 (December 24, 2008)" to read "Latest stable release: Kernel 2.6.28 (December 24, 2008)". That should eliminate the confusion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There is another problem with the version in the infobox OS template of this article and the Linux kernel, both indicate that the latest version is 2.6.2x, so we have to change both articles to update to the latest kernel version. We should only use one template, there is already one in this article Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Linux, but Linux kernel has another that is no in use in the article Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Linux_kernel. I think it is better if we use the one of Linux kernel because it is about the kernel, and in this article use the template to bring the information from Linux Kernel. So this would be like Ahunt said: Kernel Template:Latest stable software release/Linux kernel. --KDesk (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knopperdisk

Would any editors here have an opinion if Wiki should retain knowledge of this small Linux based OS ? Power.corrupts (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu/Linux on Windows?

Hello fellow editors, I'm not 100% sure if this is real/possible, but here is are some screens of Ubuntu/Linux running on Windows:

http://hacktolive.org/wiki/Portable_Ubuntu_for_Windows

Maybe if it is indeed true we should add some info about that in this page. I will leave it to an expert... Jerebin (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is legit, I just added that info. SF007 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible, it uses Colinux Kernel man with one red shoe 03:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you just dual-boot to Linux? --Technology is the future 17:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexSeibz (talk • contribs)

Put a screenshot higher up?

The first time I heard about Linux, I looked up this page and went away thinking that it was just a bunch of lines on a black screen. I think it would help fix a lot of misconceptions if we could put a screenshot of, say, the default Ubuntu installation, towards the top of the page. The first screenshot of a Linux distro is halfway down the page, and even half of that is Vista.

If nobody objects, I'll be bold... 116.232.244.113 (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk more about international usage

Regarding the to-do list on the top of the page, I've added some information about usage of Linux at an international level. I figured the most appropriate place would be the "Commercial and popular uptake" section of the article. First change to Wikipedia...go easy ;) --0imagination (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pronounciation of "Linux"

Regarding the note: "<!--NOTE: Please do NOT change the pronunciation. While /ˈlɪnʊks/ is\ Torvalds' pronunciation, /ˈlɪnəks/ is by far the most common pronunciation among English speakers and Wikipedia uses the most common pronunciation, it doesn't try to establish which one is the "correct" one-->". I'd think an encyclopedia would focus on presenting the facts over what the most popular view on something is. Besides, based on what data is that claim made?? --0imagination (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the policy of Wikipedia, we don't present the info from the point of view of subjects. man with one red shoe 01:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I didn't know that. Thanks! --0imagination (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And when it comes to names and language in general the only "correct" way is how the majority of people pronounce them. man with one red shoe 01:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

True enough, but there still remains the question on the credibility of whatever research that claim is based on :) --0imagination (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

True enough, but I can't link to English speaking TV -- the listed pronunciation is almost universal. Rent or buy Revolution OS for example and see how people pronounce it. man with one red shoe 01:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to rent or buy Revolution OS - it is available free on Google Video. Hear the pronunciations for yourself! - Ahunt (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The "commonly pronounced" with link to the Linus sample is ok for me, but there is often a difference between the majority and the majority of informed people, so listening to the majority is not the way to go. And don't say English and "universal" in the same sentence ... --LPfi (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"there is often a difference between the majority and the majority of informed people" - Couldn't have said it better myself! --0imagination (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

" majority not a good jury " -- it's not a "good" jury, it's the only jury in this kind of subjects. man with one red shoe 21:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Besides, based on what data is that claim made??" - I think that's a very good question...I for one have never heard Linux pronounced that way, and I've heard it pronounced a lot of very strange ways. Who made that determination? IncidentalPoint (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The determination was made based on my search of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary on the Oxford Reference Online and User:Paul_G's input. (See User_talk:Paul_G#"Linux"_pronunciation) The citation is:

• /ˈlɪnəks/

"Linux noun" The Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Katherine Barber. Oxford University Press 2004.

However, I have now noticed that there are also other pronunciations given by various Oxford dictionaries:

• /ˈlainəks/, /ˈliːnəks/

"Linux noun" The Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Katherine Barber. Oxford University Press 2004.

• /ˈlinəks/

"Linux n." The New Oxford American Dictionary, second edition. Ed. Erin McKean. Oxford University Press, 2005.

• /'lɪnʌks/, /'lʌɪnʌks/

"Linux noun" The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005.

"Linux n." The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Twelfth edition . Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2008.

That's six different pronunciations. Notably, none of them are actually Linus' original pronunciation, /ˈlɪnʊks/ or /ˈlɪːnʊks/ (depending on who you talk to, of course). I didn't (and still don't) know IPA so User:Paul_G gave his input on the matter, changed the article, and put that comment in. 220.233.44.172 (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Name "GNU/Linux" should be in first lines of the article

Now it is in the third paragraph, and is called "alternative" name, while it is the full name. For example, people usually call the country lying to the north from Mexico and to the south from Canada simply "America", but still it is the USA. 78.36.35.38 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

GNU/Linux is not the full name, it is a name used by a small minority of people. This issue has been discussed at great length over the last number of years, please read all the archives to this page and especially Talk:Linux/Name. The consensus is that GNU/Linux is minority use, is WP:POV and its use is covered in GNU/Linux naming controversy. Its use within this article is on the basis of a long-established consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your references, Ahunt! I read the article "GNU/Linux naming controversy" and I'll check the rest. But I do not agree, that the naming of the system is a subject of consensus between Wikipedians! Wikipedia did not create the system, but Richard Stallman did.

Furthermore! "Minority use", you say? Look around! Check other languages sections! "GNU/Linux" is certainly used as the full name, and "Linux" is used as a common, spoken name.

I'll write more after reading these discussions you told me of. 217.77.54.52 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what other languages do, this is an English encyclopedia, so please don't bring into discussion things that are irrelevant, also before opening the can of worms read the archives -- all the 25 pages of archives, there are full of Linux vs. GNU/Linux debates, if you can't bring anything new don't reopen the discussion. Otherwise don't be surprised if you don't get any response and you are simply reverted -- which I plan to do if you change anything in the article that is the result of consensus. man with one red shoe 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Debian and Ubuntu both use "GNU/Linux", and they're the most popular distributions ever. Next time use an excuse that makes sense, like "Wikipedia naming policy (as retarded as it can be), dictates articles to be given their most popular name" — as many people as there are who call it GNU/Linux, most people who don't even use it call it just Linux, and unfortunately Wikipedia is for those silly people, too. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, we don't write Wikipedia from the point of view of the subjects. man with one red shoe 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not from (how could we, except as much as we ourselves are the subjects), but yes for subjects, according to policy. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Subjects of what? I'm afraid you don't understand the meaning of words... hard to carry on a discussion in this conditions. And what part of "Use the most easily recognized name" you don't understand? man with one red shoe 00:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey man with one red shoe? ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also just plan wrong, while Debian uses "GNU/Linux" Ubuntu never has done nor have 90% of the other existing distros. - Ahunt (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What is GNU/Linux? at ubuntu.com ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the page you cite, first line: "Linux is an operating system: a series of programs that let you interact with your computer and run other programs." Even though it later says: "Because the Linux kernel alone does not form a working operating system, we prefer to use the term “GNU/Linux” to refer to systems that many people casually refer to as “Linux”", the home page says :"Ubuntu is a community developed, Linux-based operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops and servers." so you have no consistent agreement there, even within one distro's website. Regardless this not relevant, this is an old issue that that was decided long ago as pointed out in this page's archives. - Ahunt (talk)

Yeah, "Linux-based". :p Regardless, this is not relevant, this is an eternal issue that will never go away until the article's at GNU/Linux, and no consensus (real or not) is forever. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I only see a handful of (same) people and some IP addresses complaining about this... That's pretty much the consensus, learn to live with it. man with one red shoe 02:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Or you could get an eye exam. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And by the way the initial argument of the anon IP is flawed, the article in Wikipedia is not called "USA" or "The United States of America" it's called United States if you make an argument try at least to do the minimum of effort and check the facts that you use to back your argument. Also, arguing using the content of another page of Wikipedia is irrelevant unless that's a policy page (Wikipedia content is not a reliable source or a model for other pages). So, the anon IP made an irrelevant argument, backed by no facts (actually contradicted by facts) -- why do we even discuss this? man with one red shoe 02:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't comment on his argument. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In reference to another recent discussion, I think that the division of the Linux article into "Linux distribution" and "Linux kernel" would clear this up completely...the kernel article would then have nothing to do with GNU/Linux while the distribution article would be the one to describe it outright and make the distinction. Just my two cents.IncidentalPoint (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree with such a move, but I don't have illusions that it would solve anything, the fight will shift to "Linux distribution" vs. "GNU/Linux distribution", right? man with one red shoe 04:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No so much, as you can see for yourself…since both of those articles already exist... :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting to scrap Linux in favor of the other two pages, turning this into a redirect or disambiguation. IncidentalPoint (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That'd be even worse. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"I'm suggesting to scrap Linux in favor of the other two pages, turning this into a redirect or disambiguation" - disagree. - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Man with one red shoe, I did not speak of the article name, but of the article text! And my argument is true. Please see the page United States. The first words there are the full name, "The United States of America". (It's still me, the very anon IP. I've registered) A man without a country (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the archives you'd have seen that this type of argument has been brought before and refuted, people and states have "proper names" there are birth certificates and ID cards that have the names for people, there are constitutions and international organization that name states -- we don't have such thing for Linux, there's no organization that gives a name, there's not one person or organization or even consortium that owns all the Linux code and has the authority to name OSes. Moreover, even if let's say FSF "owns" GNU code it still allows people to use it without imposing a name of the final product so this is a moot point. Basically they don't have the authority to name any product released by other entity even if that's 100% GNU code (which it isn't even the case), the only authority they have is to name their products and they do, they call them "GNU", "GNU/HURD", "Emacs", etc., heck they could launch a "GNU/Linux" if they wanted, but they have zero authority to name what RedHat or Ubuntu or any other company or group releases, or a generic name of a product that uses GNU code. As I said there's no official generic name for aggregation of software that people call Linux, while there is an official name for USA (and even there is an official name the name of the article doesn't even use it, it is mentioned because it's official, but we don't have this in our case so your point about USA name is absolutely irrelevant) man with one red shoe 13:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to learn if they call it "GNU/Linux" in state acts.

P.S. Hmmm. I write this lines using the OS called Debian GNU/Linux. So moving this name to the third paragraph seems to be simply discriminating. But I've checked your position on the Linux/Name talk page, so I know that it doesn't matter for you. Also, I see that there is even no use to talk with you as you are initially biased (though, may be I am biased too), and also that such discussion is a waste of time cause nothing useful is produced. Now I just wonder where do they make the consensus you told of, please point it to me. A man without a country (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written based on hearsay. man with one red shoe 12:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely irrelevant ;) A man without a country (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you read all the archives I think what you will find is that the article was originally given the most commonly used name for the operating system, which is "Linux". It has been proposed many times that it be changed to "GNU/Linux" and many complex debates are recorded there. To change the name of the article requires a consensus, not to leave it the way it is. That consensus to change the name of the article was never achieved and that is what the archives show. The use of "GNU/Linux" is well covered in GNU/Linux naming controversy. As it says in this article "The Free Software Foundation views Linux distributions which use GNU software as GNU variants and they ask that such operating systems be referred to as GNU/Linux or a Linux-based GNU system. The media and common usage, however, refers to this family of operating systems simply as Linux, as do many large Linux distributions (e.g. Ubuntu and SuSE Linux). Some distributions use GNU/Linux (particularly notable is Debian GNU/Linux), but the term's use outside of the enthusiast community is limited. The naming issue remains a source of confusion to many newcomers, and the naming remains controversial. Linus Torvalds is against the GNU/Linux naming, stating that Linux is not a GNU project." This text was decided by consensus and sums up the prevailing view point. - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ahunt! I'm sorry if I bothered you so you had to answer me. But I repeat, that I never suggested to change the name of the article. I am familiar with Wikipedia naming policy and respect it. I said of the text only. A man without a country (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you understand the naming policy then you should understand other Wikipedia policies such as: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, till now you only provided your opinion about the "full name" and you provided "I've heard that" type of arguments, none of those are relevant here. man with one red shoe 08:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for advice, I'll read of this policies. A man without a country (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Version number

In Talk:Linux_kernel#Version_number it was suggested that this article should not have a version number mentioned. I agree. We cannot assign a version number because the article is about GNU/Linux distributions in general.

However it seems it is not easy to remove the version number since it is coded into Template:Infobox_OS (which detects the presence of Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Linux and adds the version number automatically). So to remove the version number, we could use a different template here (or just inline the table) or getting Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Linux deleted would work too. Since I don't know much about templates I'll let somebody else decide what to do. -- Borb (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A correction here -- this article isn't about "GNU/Linux" anything. It's about the term "Linux" and all that it refers to (including, not not limited to, Linux when used in conjunction with GNU software. μClinux-dist, e.g., is a Linux without GNU). But yes, the version number doesn't really need to be shown in this article. Converting to {{Infobox OS 2}} and {{prod}}ding the software release templates for deletion would be an effective way of dealing getting rid of it. Warren -talk- 06:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that is contrary to the end of the third paragraph which suggests GNU/Linux as an alternative name for what this article is about. You bring up one of the major problems with this article which was discussed (with no conclusion) in the section #What is this article about?. Maybe you can contribute to that discussion regarding the topic of the article. -- Borb (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not contrary. Read it carefully: The Linux kernel + GNU tools may be called GNU/Linux as an alternative to simply "Linux". It is never appropriate to call just the kernel component "GNU/Linux". That's not its name -- you won't see it on anywhere on kernel.org, which is the authoritative source for the naming and version numbering of the Linux kernel.

I don't know why I'm bothering trying to explain this to someone who felt it vital to assert on their user page that they disagree on principle with the term "Linux". It's a narrow and misguided view that doesn't take into account the full spectrum of what the term "Linux" covers; it'd be like arguing that Canada has ten provinces and nothing more. Warren -talk- 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was appropriate to call Linux GNU/Linux. This article is not just about Linux, that article is at Linux kernel. We use the term GNU/Linux when we talk about both Linux and GNU used in combination to form a complete Unix-like operating system (as defined in the Single Unix Specification). I do not say that my router runs GNU/Linux because that would be incorrect, it runs Linux and Busybox. I also do not call Android GNU/Linux and I certainly do not say that kernel.org distributes GNU/Linux.

It appears that you are confused about what this article is supposed to be about, which is why I recommended reading the discussion above: #What is this article about? The term Linux seems to be used mostly to describe a GNU/Linux distribution, not many people say Linux to refer to the kernel itself, even the kernel folk simply refer to it as "The Kernel" and seem to reserve the term "Linux" to mean a fully working distribution such as Debian. -- Borb (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"We use the term GNU/Linux when we talk about both Linux and GNU" -- you use that term, the most of the people don't. Besides people just talk about the OS that uses Linux kernel they simply don't care about GNU, BSD, X11, Apache and other software that's present in the final OS. man with one red shoe 17:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Just want to say that I think Man with one red shoe describes the consensus correctly. Borb states a minority view, and their view is alreday given due weight in the article. I applaud Man with one red shoe's patience in stating this once again. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant and verging on trolling. It seems you people just cannot stand even seeing the term GNU/Linux (which I merely consider to be a fully-qualified name for the Unix-like system I use, and no X11 and Apache are not required for Unix). This is a talk page, and arguing about my use of language here is unnecessary and simply flame-bait. If you don't have anything to add about the use of a version number in this article then don't post in this discussion. If you are really offended by my language then you can bring it up with me personally. -- Borb (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

What you consider to be the "fully-qualified" name is pretty much irrelevant that's the only point I'm making. man with one red shoe 19:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The topic of this seccion, Version number, is not about the name GNU or Linux or what it refers. The description in the first line is very clear and not in discussion now.

I think that this article Linux shouldn't refer to any version number in the infobox. The Linux kernel version number should be in that article and not in this. --KDesk (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A-class review

I am thinking of promoting Linux to an A-class article. Please discuss here. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 12:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that the Criticism of Linux article be merged into this, and its sub-articles, where the content fits best. The article on its own is POV, not a notable subject to stand on its own, and contains subject matter which is biased. More details can be found on the talk page of the article, and in the 3 prior AFD's for that article (1 was delete, 2 for keep/merge).-Localzuk^(talk) 17:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)