Talk:Linux

Linux is a *KERNEL*, Not an OS

Linux on its own is not an operating system. It's a *kernel* and framework upon which LInux-based OSes work from. Can anyone provide reliable factual evidence that Linux is an OS and not a kernel (on its own)? Because GNU/Linux is an OS, but Linux on its own isnt. --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To save everybody's time, let me quote from the header of this talk page: "Can we rename this page to GNU/Linux? No, the vast majority of people and companies call it Linux, and we already mention the alternate name in the lead and its own subsection." man with one red shoe 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't redirect? [Linux => Linux Based Systems] Linux is a kernel, not an operating system (ask Linus Torvalds if you want). Saying that is like saying than a V8 is an automobile. Right now GNU, for instance, represents around 15% of the general operating system code in most distributions, while Linux represents less than a 2%.http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html + http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.en.html Riveravaldez (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Because that has been discussed and rejected as a proposal many, many times. "GNU/Linux" is a minority fringe naming of the subject, and isn't what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use to describe the subject. - SudoGhost 13:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we are facing a mistake counting the pro and con opinions each time this question comes out. From a large pool of people sustaining the Linux=kernel idea, each time comes somebody new, never seen before, to express his rightful opinion. Then, always the same little oligarchy that literally owns the article blocks the newcomer with its great majority of 4-5 persons against the single. If we go back in the archive and count all the ones that have expressed themselves favorable to call Linux only what it is, a kernel, we likely discover that those are the great majority.

However, keeping your joke that Wikipedia must reflect the widespread common knowledge rather than reflect the "right, correct principles of the elite", you too are failing to play this game right two chapters above where I discussed "Linux as a _family_ of operating systems". Doesn't the common knowledge understand Linux (or, better, GNU/Linux) as a family of operating systems, rather then as a single OS being, under your opinion, be erroneously referred to with wrong names such as Debian, Ubuntu, etc.?

This again is your game to play Wikipedia's rules under you own tastes, those of a minor elite that prevents the great majority of us from editing our article the right way.

Medende (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind that this article is not related only with GNU/Linux, but also treats on mobile systems like Android, which has nothing to do with GNU.--Luizdl (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Luizdl, of course those specific sections can easily be moved to a more comprehensive Linux article not directly related with GNU and more loose on the concept of Linux-based OSes. The whole article has been forced to grown wonky upon a wrong base title improperly named "Linux".

Medende (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "truth" (and by the way, who establishes the truth?), it's about using verified sources, most of the sources use the "incorrect" term the way is used in this page, according to Wikipedia naming policies this is the name we should use even if you consider it incorrect. Any arguments about its validity or invalidity are red herrings because we cannot establish here on Wikipedia what's the correct use of words, what we can do here we can establish what is the majority use in reliable sources. If you can prove that majority of sources use GNU/Linux then we'll change the name of the article, otherwise please don't waste the time of editors with things that have been discussed over and over for years. man with one red shoe 00:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm absolutely with your opinion. But then, even without starting digging into search engines for this and speaking with data out of the hand, what is the absolutely most common way to refer to Linux? As a family of operating system comprising Debian and Ubuntu for example, or as a single OS? I think I won't need to present references for this. You'd be kidding if this isn't an hypocritical play of Wikipedia rules.

Medende (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's me the hypocrite... yet, I keep seeing titles like Red Hat: the first billion dollar Linux company has arrived or this that mentions "Meet Red Hat: the billion-dollar Linux company." I somehow don't feel the need to ask them what do they mean by "Linux company". Please troll the news writers first to write the "correct" name or to specify exactly what they mean by "Linux" and then come back here. Talking about hypocrisy, it's hypocrisy to come with a claim that we don't know what writers mean by "Linux" because it serves your interests to promote your truth in this article. man with one red shoe 12:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That stance of "Linux is a more popular term than GNU/Linux" is questionable. Why did you not mention Debian GNU/Linux? There are many software projects and companies which prefer GNU/Linux (now I feel like making a list) and yet none seems to use them to argument against the sole usage of "Linux" to refer to something bigger than the Linux kernel. By the way, thanks to the OP for taking back this debate which is clearly unsolved and shouldn't have been dismissed from the English Wikipedia as if it were a de facto consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isacdaavid (talk • contribs) 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, using Linux as a name for GNU/Linux and related operating systems based on the kernel is slang and should we really have slang/colloquial as names for wikipedia pages? I'll admit to using Linux in daily speech, but I'm still a strong advocate of GNU/LInux and that what my grub entry says. Just imagine the uproar if the penis page was suddenly named dick. ;)

83.233.6.169 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The article says that Linux is an operating system, which is not the same the same thing as the Linux kernel. "The Linux operating system" must have some defining characteristic that makes it a single thing, and not refer to any operating system which uses the Linux kernel. If such a definition can be reached, Android is probably not included because so many of the user space programs used are so different to those used in other Linux-based operating systems. It is possible that there is so much diversity among Linux-based operating systems that it would be incorrect to say that they are a versions of single "Linux operating system". (The situation may have changed since previous discussions on this Wikipedia talk page, e.g. with the popularity of Android.) I think that a title like "Linux-based operating system" or "Overview of operating systems based on the Linux kernel" would be better. Count Truthstein (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

All of the defining characteristics of Linux (or Unix for that matter) are in the kernel: process handling, char/block devices, ... GNU is simply a layer on top that doesn't really define anything. You can't make a Linux OS by adding all of the GNU tools to a (say) FreeBSD kernel - and call it Linux - on the other hand you can remove all of the GNU tools... and it would still be Linux (and still be an operating system). Embedded Linux is a good example of this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's tautological to say that the defining characteristics of Linux are in the kernel because Linux *is* a kernel. It's false to say that all of the defining characteristics of Unix are in the kernel. (Examples are the common Unix commands, the convention of using programs that communicate via pipes, the Unix directory structure, etc., and GNU handles some of that.) It's tautological to say that you can't make a Linux OS without Linux. (You can't make a GNU OS without GNU either. So what?) It's irrelevant to say that you can make a Linux OS without GNU. (You can make a GNU OS without Linux.) What is the point you're trying to make here? I'm sure we all know that neither absolutely requires the other, although in practice they are almost always used together, and what is commonly called "Linux" refers to the combination of GNU and Linux and some other software, with GNU comprising the plurality of it -- ten times as much as Linux. If "GNU/Linux" is used so rarely as to be irrelevant, then the use of "Linux" to refer to non-GNU systems is surely an order of magnitude less relevant.

In answer to Count Truthstein, I would simply say that the defining characteristic of a "Linux operating system" is that it uses Linux (the kernel) and Android is clearly included in that definition. He may have a point in that the thing that you call "Linux" describes Android as well, yet you don't call Android "Linux". You may say it's a weak argument because the primary creator of Android -- Google -- calls it "Android". And it may remain a weak argument, but I would still note that the primary creator of "Linux" (the operating system) is the GNU Project, and they call it "GNU/Linux". If someone argues "the primary creator, Linus, calls it 'Linux'", then they are only referring to the kernel (since that's what Linus created), and the same argument can be turned around to say "well, the primary creator of the 'Linux operating system', the GNU Project, calls it 'GNU/Linux'". Anyway, Android is closely analogous to GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux is the userspace (largely comprised of GNU) plus Linux, the kernel. Android is the userspace (largely provided by Google) plus Linux, the kernel. If one is to use clear and consistent definitions of terms, then it would be inconsistent to insist on calling GNU/Linux "Linux" while calling Android "Android". However, if you simply go by popularity, then I cannot argue.

And I believe you are wrong to stick to such a pedantic definition of an operating system ('the layer that mediates between the hardware and the userspace'). By that reasoning, MS-DOS and Windows are not operating systems, but aggregations that include small operating systems inside of them somewhere. (They have parts that interface with the hardware, i.e. kernels or "operating systems" as you use the term, but they are not named after their kernels. The MS-DOS kernel has no name, and the Windows kernel has at times been unnamed or referred to by an internal codename only.) "Unix" as popularly used, like "Windows" and "MS-DOS", has always referred to the entire system of software, including the userspace. Just as Unix, Windows, and MS-DOS are operating systems, GNU and GNU/Linux are operating systems too. On the other hand, Linux cannot power any machine by itself; it needs a userspace (even if it's only init). It's ridiculous to say that Linux is an operating system when it cannot make a computer operate. Linux always forms a part of an operating system; it is the kernel of it.

That said, I must grudgingly admit that "Linux" is probably the name that best fits Wikipedia's official policies and should be chosen when there's a dispute, but I strongly disagree with Chris Cunningham's one man crusade to bulk-replace references to "GNU/Linux" on Wikipedia with "Linux", unilaterally overruling the many people who worked on those articles. 184.78.155.105 (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"I would still note that the primary creator of "Linux" (the operating system) is the GNU Project, and they call it "GNU/Linux" " -- How so? Creators of Linux distributions are different companies and communities that use free code that's available to them. They get to name their final products, not whoever wrote the original code. Even more, I highly doubt that GNU part is the majority of the code in a Linux distribution, actually it's not even the biggest part. I am glad though that you agree that Linux fits the best Wikipedia's naming policies. man with one red shoe 18:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What's especially tedious about this recurring argument is consistent confusion between operating systems and applications. Just because applications are commonly distributed with an operating system does not make them part of the operating system. Within the field of serious computer science, the term operating system has some specific meaning, correctly reflected in the opening paragraph of our own Operating system article: "An operating system (OS) is a set of programs that manage computer hardware resources and provide common services for application software. The operating system is a vital component of the system software in a computer system. Application programs require an operating system which are usually separate programs, but can be combined in simple systems." Using the term as it's understood within the field, the operating system is Linux, not GNU anything. The GNU stuff is all application layer. Msnicki (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to feed this infinite troll... What's especially tedious about this recurring argument is consistent confusion between operating systems and kernel. A kernel alone doesn't operate anything. Applications cannot talk with it (like in provide common services for application software) without at least a libc (which most common flavor for Linux is... know what?... GNU C Library as in GNU/Linux) A kernel alone cannot even boot by itself, without a bootloader (I won't tell that the most common Linux bootloader is GNU GRUB. Yes, as in GNU/Linux). And the list is quite long. Without userspace tools, without an init system, that mounts the disks in the right order, spawns the ttys etc, my computer computes as much as my teapot does and can hardly seen as running an operating system (if the definition of operating hasn't change since the last time I checked) 78.229.224.75 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's perfectly right and I agree completely. People saying the opposite shouldn't be editing this article, because clearly don't know what are they talking about. Riveravaldez (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be merged into this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel all the information relating specifically to the kernel should be moved there, and this page should be used to describe Linux systems specifically, as in systems that use the Linux kernel, I agree that GNU is not required for Linux to function, yet something is required to make it run, as Msnickiar said, an application layer. This page should not be renamed, GNU/Linux, as not all systems use GNU. It should be renamed Linux Systems, which while describing GNU/Linux, also describes, Systems such as Android, which do not use GNU, and all kernel specific information should be moved to the Linux Kernel Page Ziiike (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't be better (instead of Linux Systems) Linux Based Systems? Riveravaldez (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the first and second paragraphs of this article can be modified as follows:

• paragraph 1:

Linux (i/ˈlɪnəks/ lin-əks or /ˈlɪnʊks/ lin-uuks) is a Unix-like computer operating system kernel assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The defining component of a Linux-based operating system is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds. The Linux-based operating system is usually abbreviated as the Linux operating system or Linux.

• paragraph 2:

The term Linux properly refers to just the operating system kernel itself, but generally using Linux kernel to express the meaning. In popular parlance ‘Linux’ is used to refer to a complete Linux Distribution which includes GUI components and many other utilities, many of which are supplied by the GNU Project. Android, for example also uses the Linux kernel but includes different components from most desktop Linux distributions. Applelinux (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

---

In the above (long) discussion, an easily supportable point is hidden beneath the "Linux or GNU/Linux?" and "kernel or operating system?" questions - at the very least, and all sides would agree on this I believe: "Linux is a Unix-like operating system" is less correct than "Linux is a family of Unix-like operating systems". Could that small change please be considered upon, without other baggage from the above discussion? This lack of distinction is the first that meets the eye in this article, and as it stands it directly clashes with he first sentences in the articles for every Linux distribution. "Family of" would remove this discrepancy, and make it easier on the eye for a lot of people.

Also, the article already says this, under the "GNU/Linux" section: "The media and common usage, however, refers to this family of operating systems simply as Linux, as do many large Linux distributions".

It is possible to discuss anything in absurdum (as is shown above), but in all honesty: this would be a small change, it would stop contradicting other articles, it would stop contradicting itself, it would still not contradict sources, etc. It is still not perhaps a perfectly rigorous definition of the word "Linux", but it would seem to be the one reflected in "media and common usage", as the article itself admits later, and that is what should be reflected at Wikipedia in this case, correct? 46.239.104.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead used to contain "family of", but it was removed when it was pointed out that few or no reliable sources use this framing and that all it did was make the lead mushier. It's okay in the article body where we can use our own phrasing to clarify the matter, but not in the lead. What's more, it's certainly not the case that this terminology is commonplace: Mac OS X is commonly referred to as "an operating system", as is Windows 7, and even Unix itself as a whole. The current wording is stable precisely because so few people take issue with it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally find that the "Linux is an operating system"-mantra cements confusion from new users that is difficult to clear up, and perhaps that the introduction 'should' be mushy since it is a complex issue.

But let's not reiterate the above discussion and try to be constructive instead: perhaps a more extensive "What is Linux?" section ( naming not decided :-) ) should be most fitting in this article and better satisfy the NPOV criteria. This is not the same as simply the "GNU/Linux naming controversy", which is more specific and actually a subset of this wider question. It could be somewhat based on http://www.linux.org/article/view/what-is-linux and other sources. I believe this should be central to the "Linux" article on Wikipedia - people who look at this want to know what Linux is, and right now it is incomplete in my (and some other vocal participants above) eyes. 46.239.104.5 (talk)

Article name

Perhaps the article name can be changed to GNU/Linux ? I see it's allready mentioned in the article at Linux_naming_controversy, but perhaps the name can be changed to indicate that the kernel is the only difference it has from GNU. (GNU uses the GNU Hurd kernel instead)

Perhaps change the into to:

Linux (Listeni/ˈlɪnəks/ LIN-əks[6][7] or /ˈlɪnʊks/ LIN-uuks)[8][9][10] is a GNU's Not Unix!-like computer operating system assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. In contrary to GNU, Linux uses the Linux kernel, which is an operating system kernel first released on 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds.

The term Linux properly refers to just the operating system kernel itself. However, in popular parlance it is used to refer to a complete Linux Distribution which includes GUI components and many other utilities, many of which are supplied by the GNU Project. Android, for example also uses the Linux kernel but includes different components from most desktop Linux distributions.

I mentioned GNU-like computer operating system rather than Unix-like computer operating system as the GNU's Not Unix! code is itself a variant code of the Unix code (a free version thereof). If we would say Unix-like, we indirectly state that it's not composed wholly of free software. 109.130.148.24 (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed once or twice (see Talk:Linux/Name, and the "Useful info from archives" template at the very top of the talk page). The consensus is that the article's title is not GNU/Linux. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources do not use GNU/Linux to describe the subject, the article's common name is Linux. Also, reliable sources describe Linux as Unix-like, not GNU-like. I'm not sure how you conclude that "If we would say Unix-like, we indirectly state that it's not composed wholly of free software", but considering that you're suggesting the article be changed to GNU/Linux, I don't think I have to go into too much detail, but rms and the FSF both are pretty adamant that most of Linux doesn't fit with their definition of free software. - SudoGhost 14:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As for User:Count Truthstein not knowing where these discussions took place: there's almost 600k of discussion at Talk:Linux/Name alone. The last administrator to close a requested move on this subject remarked that "the requester and any other people commenting on this should read the complete archives for this talk page (listed at the top) as this issue has been fully discussed in the past." It's been discussed. Extensively. - SudoGhost 15:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

YES! The WP:COMMONNAME is Linux, not GNU/Linux. Deal with it. Msnicki (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAMES says: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Everyone knows that calling the OS "Linux" leads people to think that Linus Torvalds (and friends who later joined him) wrote an operating system. "Linux" is a completely ambiguous, inaccurate name and should be avoided. This is an encyclopedia. The goal is to educate, not to repeat mistakes. This article should be moved to "GNU/Linux" Gronky (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Page move: GNU/Linux

Over almost a year of discussion since this thread was started, lots of people continue to come here and notice that the article title is clearly wrong. The singular opposition party, refraining from any change to the title, is composed of just two persons: man with one red shoe and SudoGhost. These two persons seem to control the article, holding it in this state reverting back any change oriented to a pro-GNU/Linux nomenclature. Not to mention that man with one red shoe finds his wiki references almost exclusively from Redhat-affiliated websites and this, together with the "red" in his name, makes me suspect he has business with Redhat and may not be an unbiased candidate to over-evaluate his opinions over those of the actual majority of the people writing on this thread to promote a title change.

Apart from this, I open a votation in favour of the change of the article's title to an expression containing the word GNU, such as GNU/Linux, or equally for the title Linux-based Operating Systems. Medende (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Support, because calling the whole operating system just "Linux" is a nonsense to me, as previously discussed. Medende (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as long as reliable sources use "Linux" to describe the subject, this article should not and will not be changed to "GNU/Linux". The reason "pro-GNU/Linux nomenclature" is being reverted is because that is an extremely minority term that has very little usage in reliable sources. Articles reflect reliable sources, not what we think is the "truth". It also doesn't matter what is "nonsense" to you, we go by what reliable sources say, not what makes sense to you. - SudoGhost 05:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

We always use the expression "Linux kernel" to designate the kernel. Maybe we can clarify it in the second paragraph after "The term Linux properly refers to just the operating system kernel itself".Applelinux (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Using "GNU/Linux" to refer to systems built on Linux is a minority view, so I agree that the article shouldn't be called that. It's not a minority view that Linux is the name of a kernel (whether or not it's the name of something else as well). So "Linux-based systems" or something similar would be an acceptable name, although not necessarily the best name. Count Truthstein (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying Linux isn't the name of the kernel, in fact we have an entire article about it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Linux only refers to the kernel, and reliable sources don't use the word "Linux" exclusively to refer to the kernel. "Linux-based systems" also has an article: Linux distribution, and that isn't the scope of this article; it is supposed to be an overarching article in keeping with Wikipedia:Summary style, so I don't think it's a good idea to impose arbitrary limitations on the scope of this article when (1) there is already an article that covers "linux-based systems" and (2) reliable sources themselves do not reflect such a name change. - SudoGhost 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Support. The name "Linux" misleads people. This is an encyclopedia and our duty is to educate, not to repeat misunderstandings. As WP:COMMONNAME says, we should avoid "Ambiguous or inaccurate names" and this is a perfect example. GNU/Linux is much clearer and more accurate. If people have questiosn, they can look at GNU and at Linux kernel and they will learn. When it's just "Linux", they look at Linux, Linux kernel, Linus Torvalds, and the misunderstanding is just perpetuated, which means Wikipedia fails its goal. Gronky (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment there is little point in asking people to vote for and against of a vague range of options. Have a look at WP:RFC and start a proper process if that's what you want to do. Things to think about: (a) GNU/Linux is an expression used by almost nobody. (b) If you succeed in getting all the content here moved onto a page with some other obscure descriptive name, the English Wikipedia page Linux will still exist - what (stated clearly) is your proposal for what this page should then contain? --Nigelj (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We've already had multiple RfCs on that subject. While consensus can change, that requires new arguments rather than just new people turning up to make the old ones. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a real problem with your attitude. "New people" are welcome to discuss the issues and the article is not owned by any editor or group of editors who've been editing longer. Count Truthstein (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Discuss them, yes. But consensus is not simply a matter of attrition, and one cannot simply march into a long debate and declare that it's time t rethink it because one happens to not have been around to take part the first time. We have talk archives in order to prevent that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha! "consensus is not simply a matter of attrition", says the editor that single-handedly changed all instances of "GNU/Linux" in Wikipedia articles to "Linux" during the Summer of 2009. Don't forget, I logged your behaviour. You've found a way to game the system with your edit floods, but there will come a day when Wikipedia has policies/systems to prevent that type of abuse. Gronky (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Replying to this off-topic sniping on your user talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support. GNU is an integral part of the system, since without it Linux (the kernel) is useless! Even Linus Torvalds says so:

"Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software [...]" ref

Note that he does not say "in linux", but "with Linux"; thus referencing the kernel in the usage of the name. Of course the article should still mention that many distros call the whole system simply "Linux": So both these names (Linux and GNU/Linux) should be right up there in the very first paragraph. Also, the page called "Linux" should then redirect to the renamed "GNU/Linux" page. In terms of article-content, it should be more clearly mentioned what exactly the different components of the system actually do (see the two bullets in the section titled What do the parts inside Linux do? (Linux Kernel, GNU coreutils and libraries) above, for a suggestion.)
Also: the GNU project began in 1983 which is some 8 years prior to the start of the Linux kernel. The user's of the Linux kernel, when looking for the necessary programs to actually create a usable operating system (coreutils, libraries, POSIX programming interface) out of it, found everything they needed from the GNU project and could just use it. Why did this work so smoothly? Because both are based on Unix, and thus easily compatible.
In case you're interested in Richard Stallman's view (he's the founder of the GNU project) of how the things happened:

Fortunately we didn’t have to wait that long, because in 1991-92 a Finnish college student called Linus Torvalds wrote another free kernel, well he wrote a kernel and at the end he decided to make it free software and he released it under the name “Linux”. He used to monolithic approach that had been used before. Well we didn’t know about Linux. Because he never contacted us to tell us about it. But he announced it on the network somewhere and people who knew about it said “Let’s see if we can find all the other parts of an operating system so that we can make a complete system.” So they looked around and lo and behold, everything they needed was already there. What good fortune, they said its already available, but there was no rock about it. What they had found were all the pieces that were going to be the pieces of GNU! So in fact what they were doing was fitting linux into that gap in that GNU system to make the combination of GNU + Linux. The GNU/Linux system. But they didn’t realise that. They didn’t that they were finding all the pieces of the GNU system. Therefore they were starting with Linux and finding these other pieces and putting them on top of Linux. So they call that a Linux system which they really shouldn’t have done. They had no business calling this version of our operating system by some other name. But that’s what they did. And the misnormer got imitated by other people, and that’s how it happened.

source (original source)

Hnfiurgds (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Guys, this is getting tedious. There is no WP:CONSENSUS to support the FSF's "GNU/Linux" agenda, that's not the WP:COMMONNAME and nothing has changed. Msnicki (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

About consensus: by this poll we are trying to demonstrate that there is a strong consensus and support for renaming the article by the most of the editors. About commonname: we will do what the majority of the people think it's right for Wikipedia. Medende (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not a head count. Instead of throwing bogus polls, read WP:CONSENSUS. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support. I'm jaded of reading the same wasted argument about overwhelming majorities using Linux. Do you really have nice statistical proofs supporting your point?, because I only keep reading challenging claims like "...that is an extremely minority term that has very little usage in reliable sources", or "as long as reliable sources use "Linux" to describe the subject", et cetera, but no references at all proving this supposed de-facto usage. Could someone point out last consensus on which Linux was chosen?, 'cause I'm a relatively new, yet committed Wikipedia user, and could have missed some important background in this millennial discussion . Meanwhile, I have collected a number of real, non-primary, reliable sources using GNU/Linux to name the subject. Some of them clearly embrace GNU/Linux while others seem to indiscriminately use both (so they still count for GNU/Linux acknowledgement purposes). Let's begin: the Electronic Frontier Foundation (read ending), VideoLAN (the VLC guys), Knoppix, Debian of course, Arch Linux, Slitaz and many more minor distros; KDE, LibreOffice, MediaWiki, Audacity, The New York Times (1) and (2), ZDNet, LinuxInsider, this paper used 3 times within current article page, Stephen Fry :), Jimmy Wales, the MIT,... and even kernel.org, (2): which is the official Linux kernel website!

I cannot assure they're the crushing majority, nonetheless, such an amount is surprisingly high. Neither the general article mindset, nor the pseudo-mascot image and the rest of the infobox, nor the GNU/Linux section properly cover the quite popular more-than-kernel view; regardless which is the most widespread term. Hence, the article contradicts WP:NPOV. (In fact, the whole infobox is a lame copy of that written for Linux_(kernel)). I find the current abstract/initial paragraph(s) pretty fair though; to be more specific, since 22 November 2012 17:47 edition by Tuntable, who added nice average-reader explanations for all this mess. --Isacdaavid (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are looking for something, and find it - then it is not surprising - nor is it statistical evidence (see Confirmation bias). Now the last time i participated in this (neverending discussion) i did do some statistical analysis, by checking the academic literature (and books) and whether they used Linux or GNU/Linux: User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/LinuxWeight...Generously you can state that it comes to around 97:3 in favour of Linux vs. GNU/Linux - which says quite clearly that it is a minority term. (check the archives for others who've done the same as i have - they are there) Feel free to update it with modern figures - if you really believe that things have changed :) So until the time that you demonstrate that things have changed: Oppose --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The WP:COMMONNAME is very clearly Linux, not GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux is only used by a small group of FSF supporters and is not in common use in English. The existing and very longstanding consensus should not be overturned. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think it's clear that nothing has changed since the last dozen discussions and canvassing editors won't change that (from what I can tell, every single person "supporting" in this discussion was WP:CANVASSED). "GNU/Linux" is a minority term, and not the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, and until that changes Wikipedia policy does not support such a change. - SudoGhost 03:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions by far the most distributions (including the popular Ubuntu) are derived from Debian, and from the Debian website itself (http://www.debian.org/intro/about) "A large part of the basic tools that fill out the operating system come from the GNU project; hence the [name]: GNU/Linux". If proponents (such as SudoGhost) for keeping the article title as "Linux" based solely on what it is commonly known as, then maybe they should be arguing for a change to "Ubuntu" instead, because a lot of sources simply refer to the Ubuntu OS as simply "Ubuntu" without any reference to Linux at all. GNU plays a vital part alongside the kernel in most distributions, and that the Debian project acknowledges "GNU/Linux" has more credibility than whatever supposed common name these proponents claim is in use. Even if a reliable source can be found that claims common usage of "Linux" over "GNU/Linux", the sources claiming otherwise are far more credible (the Debian project). Editors like SudoGhost should get off their soapbox and stop reverting edits without justification or consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2013

That Debian page does use the term "GNU/Linux" but they also use the term "Linux" and where they use the term "GNU/Linux", it appears to refer specifically to the combination of GNU and Linux components. I disagree that they are saying that Linux is always "GNU/Linux". More to the point, even if we could establish that they prefer that Linux be referred to as "GNU/Linux", so what. Theirs would still be just one opinion and does not change the fact the WP:COMMONNAME in the press and elsewhere is just Linux. Finally, your attack on SudoGhost is unnecessary. There is an existing WP:CONSENSUS and it doesn't support you. Msnicki (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

That Ubuntu comment makes no sense; the article is already referred to solely as Ubuntu, barring the parenthetical disambiguation. It is not referred to as "Ubuntu OS" or "Ubuntu Linux", because reliable sources refer to it as "Ubuntu". If you're referring to the fact that the Ubuntu website is lacking in the word "Linux", then that's not relevant, because this is about the page title, not the description, which the article does not use either. Why? Because reliable sources define it as such, it doesn't matter what terminology the website itself uses if the overwhelming majority of reliable sources give a more accurate and concise definition. Debian would follow that same argument, as would each derivative, so that doesn't really support your argument. It's odd to claim that this article should be changed "because Debian" but that a perceived negative should be avoided "because Ubuntu"; how many Debian-derivatives follow that same convention? Your own comment suggests that Ubuntu, the largest (with the most sub-derivatives) fails to do so, . This line of argument would, at best, warrant changing each individual article, but doesn't support renaming this article, which has a much larger scope than a single distro, since reliable sources don't support renaming the article. - SudoGhost 14:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why 203.129.23.146 even brought up Ubuntu. The official About Ubuntu page mentions Linux 4 times but never mentions GNU even once. It certainly doesn't refer to Linux as "GNU/Linux". Msnicki (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should (all) re-read my comment. Ubuntu is simply Ubuntu (not Ubuntu Linux), and Debian is Debian GNU/Linux. My sources are the vendor websites themselves. If you can't read and understand that (and find it in the sources), nothing I can say could possibly help you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk • contribs)

No, we understood your point perfectly, it just wasn't a convincing one, nor was it particularly relevant to this article. - SudoGhost 21:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Let's please move onto something more interesting. II | (t - c) 04:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. If you doubt that the WP:COMMONNAME is Linux, not GNU/Linux, here are some numbers from Google. It's not even close. Msnicki (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Type of search	Linux - "GNU/Linux"	"GNU/Linux"	Ratio
Web	1,130,000,000	29,200,000	38.7
News	123,000	8,400	14.6
Books	9,220,000	60,700	151.9
Discussions	70,400,000	2,940,000	23.9
Blogs	61,900,000	2,110,000	29.3
Patents	238,000	3,240	74.5
Applications	15,500,000	118,000	131.4
Shopping	236,000	933	252.9

Oppose While I haven't worked in this article or this particular subject, I've wached this debate for a while, and it seems to me the arguments favoring GNU/Linux try to favor the views of a particular group of people, so they are not neutral. The GNU/Linux issue is clearly refered on the lead and it makes perfectly clear what we're talking about, so I don't think it's misleading. Not A Superhero (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. Calling the combination of the Linux kernel with its most widely used userspace - GNU - 'GNU/Linux', rather than 'Linux', is about technical clarity and correctness, not the views of the FSF. We wouldn't call Windows 'NT', and we wouldn't call Mac OS X 'XNU' - so why aren't we calling the GNU/Linux operating system for what it actually is? 7sagan (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• There are two issues with that argument though. (1) Reliable sources do not use Linux to refer solely to the kernel; Linux is a kernel, but Linux is not just the kernel. (2) GNU/Linux is "correct" only according to a small group of individuals, and again that's not reflected by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. We aren't calling it GNU/Linux because that isn't what it "actually is"; it's only referred to as such by a small group and isn't reflected by common usage, and that certainly isn't the "official" name in any capacity. Linux is the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject, so that's what the article's title is. - SudoGhost 10:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• The first point raised is patently incorrect. The world's biggest, most popular and forked "Linux" distribution, Debian, explicitly segregates usage of the word Linux to describe the kernel from the rest of the operating system, which is called GNU/Linux. I would call the Debian project a reliable source, and certainly not a minority. Analogously to your argument, the same "reliable" sources that call GNU/Linux "Linux", usually call people who circumvent computer security as "hackers"; a corruption of the original meaning of the word. Just because mass media perpetuates this misunderstanding as fact, does not make the corruption any more true or correct. And no, Linux *is* just a kernel, no matter how many times you assert otherwise. Linux is a kernel developed by Linus Torvalds in 1991; the other essential components, such as a shell, core libraries and compilers were developed outside the Linux kernel by other sources. As for your second point, QED. 7sagan (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Linux distributions mentioned in the introduction

Just for clarification, I made the distributions mentioned in the introduction be the top seven entries on DistroWatch (although not necessarily in the order listed there). This may not be the best selection method, but it is the best one I can divine at this present point in time. Hamish Paul Wilson (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not mention Chrome_os if you already mentioned Android?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.153.230.50 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic Linux Community Support

DevelopmentStatistics

Community Content should update with real corporations that contribute to linux Developmrent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.137.241 (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The Linux kernel, NOT are a OS

1. REDIRECT [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexLikeRock (talk • contribs) 12:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2013

From the infobox:

| caption = Tux the penguin, mascot of Linux<ref name="LinuxOnLine2008">Linux Online (2008). "Linux Logos and Mascots". Retrieved 11 August 2009.</ref>

The link is dead. The most sensible solution I can think of would be the following in the cite web template:

| archiveurl = http://wayback.archive.org/web/20100815085106/http://www.linux.org/info/logos.html | archivedate = August 15, 2010

81.232.114.228 (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done HueSatLum 21:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)