Talk:GNewSense

GNU/Linux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as, articles are not written from the point of view of their subjects. In this case Debian states that the naming is GNU/Linux which is not the subject so its not violating NPOV, looks like an invalid claim to me. Mion (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

as for the past 18 months, i think that more information came available in that time, and consensus now might be different than 18 months ago. Mion (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Errr, articles aren't written from the POV of other articles either. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bringing out the actual differences

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

Ubuntu-Libre

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

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

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

Ubuntu-libre

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

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

gnuisance

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

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

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

Endorsement by FSF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GNU/Linux is a fine name

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

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

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

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

Alive?

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

Chris Cunningham or the modern day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Start by going to this one that has the Title:

"Sun's GNU/Linux Offerings"

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

In it your employer Sun itself says:

"Sun is one of the largest contributors to the GNU/Linux operating system" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bald Eeagle (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be necessary to point out, but I do not speak for, nor edit on behalf of my employers. My opinions are not necessarily theirs, and theirs are not necessarily mine. This is not an issue of opinion, it is an issue of consistency across Wikipedia, and ensuring that articles retain a neutral point of view of their subjects, rather than a sympathetic point of view as portrayed by sites such as Wikinfo. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Chris. Just because your employers use "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux" doesn't mean you have to. Bald Eagle, if your employers started calling red "green", would you go through Wikipedia and change all the references? I'd think it was nonsense because I am my own person with my own opinions. I also agree that consistency across Wikipedia should be the main point, and the term "Linux" is more widely recognised than "GNU/Linux". ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as the arbiter of Sun's view, I can confirm that Chris' view in no way represents his employer's view. I disagree with his position, since I believe prefacing the term "Linux" with the term "GNU" serves the useful purpose of highlighting that GNU/Linux is a compound of many elements and has what many developers would term a "GNU Userland" wrapped around a "Linux kernel". That's why I have made it Sun's policy to refer to GNU/Linux when speaking of Linux-based operating system distributions, and it's why I encourage Nexenta to describe itself as "GNU/OpenSolaris". Webmink (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

JGXenite ;Technobadger Thumperward you are NOT impartial.

It seems to me that these are all different nicknames for the same person. Anyway I just want to point out to anyone arriving to this Wikipedia article that Chris Cunningham and the "other" mentioned are so evidently contradicting themselves.

Mr. Cunningham first admits that the use of GNU/Linux or just Linux is based according to him that on which term is the most used. So I just mentioned the fact that his employer Sun Microsystems uses the term GNU/Linux as an example that GNU/Linux is also widely used. But when I showed that to him then Mr. Cunningham and "jam" say that that is the opinion of his employer and that he has his own opinion. Then you are clearly accepting that you are engaged in deleting the term GNU/Linux just because YOU have a different opinion on how the system should be called and actually not based on any kind of consensus or logical or impartial decision reached after consultation with impartial and well informed experts on this subject.

If you go to the online Encarta encyclopedia which is owned by Microsoft Corporation even there the system is called the GNU/Linux operating system. In fact they mention and use also the word Linux. So why do you want to delete GNU/Linux? It is very clear that though you claim to be "neutral" you have taken sides with those people that mainly because of antipathy to the ideas of the Free Software Foundation and the GNU project simply want to attempt to mislead the general public into believing that the whole system was created by Linus Torvalds. And why you sympathize with him? Because he is a man that does not truly believe in Free software and allows software to become proprietary because that is how many companies make money. Linus Torvalds allows "official" Linux kernel that contain non free software. It is thanks to GNU programs such as the GNU C compiler that Torvalds got from the Free Software Foundation he was able to produce the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel alone does not do anything useful. Every computer user needs many more programs besides just the kernel if he wants to type even just a one page letter. So most of the applications bundled with the "kernel" come from the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation. And most are distributed with a license created also by the Free Software Foundation the famous "GPL". If the system had been created by Linus Torvalds then why didn't he create his own distribution license??? Simply he could not do that because in the first place to create his program the Linux "kernel" he had used software covered by the GNU GPL!

I am sure that you are the kind of person who would like to have access to the code of a program that is almost or actually completely finished and then just add a few lines of your own code and then pretend to claim the authorship of the whole program as if it had been just you who did it all and then try to charge users a lot of money just to be able to run the program.

If you really wanted to be honest and "neutral" as you claim to be the right and wise thing for you to do would be to allow equal mention of both names for the system we are talking about. But of course you are not going to do that. Because you sympathize with the ideas behind the names "Linux" and "Open source". And you work for a company that pays your salary selling mainly propriety software. But at least your employer seems to agree to call the system GNU/Linux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bald Eeagle (talk • contribs) 22:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not Chris Cunningham or whoever else you think I might be. Your claims are completely unfounded, and I would ask that you stop making such accusations as you cannot back them up.

Secondly, do you claim to be impartial to the subject? Clearly not, since you feel the correct term is "GNU/Linux" and seem to be making it your life's work to convince anyone else that that is the correct term. Personally, it seems to me that the GNU/Linux vs Linux debate is completely nonsensical, and if nothing else, splits a community that should be united for the sake of the whole project!

As has been said time and time again, yet you seem to ignore, somewhere in the past (I don't know where or when, because I wasn't an editor then) a consensus was reached that the term "Linux" should be used throughout Wikipedia. Therefore, going around changing everything to "GNU/Linux" just confuses those who come to Wikipedia for information and goes against that consensus.

Bald Eagle, perhaps instead of highlighting the faults of others, you should look at your own faults. Instead of contributing to this encyclopaedia, you seem to be causing more harm than good. Instead of going around mouthing off at other editors, why not try and help improve Wikipedia? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 00:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Jam on GNU/Linux vs Linux debate

Jam

First I am not the one who makes claims about impartiality and then go around deleting the contributions of others because then do not fit my preconceived ideas and then use non existent justifications of "consensus" as a basis to do that. Since it is you and Mr.Cunningham who take that initiative please at least indicate exactly where are the documents where such a discussion took place where a large enough number of people took part and if there was any vote to decide about the terms to use. These are things to be done not lightly.

Of course that I along with many other people want to help and contribute to share the knowledge we have about certain subject with others but it is the editor who proceeds to modify delete systematically who has to be serious and respectful and show us the document that backs his claims that legitimize his actions.

What is really outrageous is that there can be one person who comes to wikipedia with a "project" aimed at breaking some kind of "record" and just go around the encyclopedia and systematically change contributions.

I do not believe that there was ever and consensus reached and that even if one may not like it the debate over whether to use GNU/Linux or just Linux is far from over. Since there is a divided opinion on that matter the right thing to do as happens when things like that take place in other areas of life the two terms should be used.

It is more confusing to someone coming to get to know the operating system to just see the name Linux and only references to Linus Torvalds and the later on as one gets beyond the surface find the fingerprints of the Free Software Foundation and something called "GNU". Such as why is the Linux kernel which was created by Linus Torvalds and other programmers released under the GNU General Public License (GPL) if GNU had nothing to do with the creation of Linux? Why if the entire operating system is presented as being the work of Linus Torvalds one finds within the code of most programs the GNU GPL that comes from an organization in the United States called the Free Software Foundation?

In the film REVOLUTION OS even Linus Torvalds says that without the programs from the Free Software Foundation such as the GNU C compiler it would have been impossible to create Linux and most of the "open source" software. So why not say the truth and allow the use of the name GNU/Linux?

Again there was never any such consensus on forbidding the use of the term GNU/Linux and replacing it with Linux. In fact beyond the articles presented here in Wikipedia outside in the real world as more and more people and organization get better informed the use of the term GNU/Linux is used more. This happens with governments and International organizations around the World. One example I can tell you is UNESCO. If you go to a newsstand there are magazines that are called GNU/Linux, in bookstores and libraries one can find books that are titled GNU. Of course one can find also others called just Linux. It is more confusing for a neophyte who wants to learn history and the operation of the operating system to use the word Linux than GNU/Linux. When anyone tries to download a software that works on Linux most of the times it will be released under the GNU GPL. So if GNU has nothing to do with Linux why is software given to me showing me this GNU GPL license???... a neophyte beginner will wonder.

The real reasons why the term Linux as well as others such as "open source" is being pushed is that as the founders of the "Open Source Initiative" have expressed in books and interviews is that by avoiding the term GNU and the philosophy it carries with it you make the operating system more palatable to corporations and the business community. It all comes down to a matter of money and business.

Many people are afraid companies will not invest in software that brings to mind ideas of freedom, such as that of free software which is not talking about software without charge, "gratuit" but software without restrictions to the user. I have noted that many people that use the term Linux are involved in fact with companies that try to sell some software or programming service. It is interesting to note that even Linus Torvalds when he first released his kernel he did not use the GNU GPL license. It was a proprietary program that only him could legally modify. It was only later that following the legal advice of one of his friends that he changed to the GPL license. The obvious reason is that he could not use his kernel program which was proprietary at first in combination with the GNU operating system that was released under the strict conditions set by the GNU General Public License and then try to sell the entire system because he would be violating the terms of agreement of the GPL covered programs he intended to use with his kernel. That would have ended with him in court for copyright violations.

It is known that is one of the reasons Torvalds does not like the GNU GPL because it does not allow him to take free software made by others mix them with his own programs make it all proprietary then claim whole authorship and become rich in the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bald Eeagle (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not even sure where to begin with that, but it is nice to see that you wrote me a personal reply - NOT! (see Talk:Linux#Where is that "consensus"? - look familiar?)

Perhaps you should state exactly what "affiliations" you have with the FSF and GNU, since you do not seem to be impartial yourself. Aside from my use of Linux, I have no official affiliations with the FSF, GNU or any company that would prefer the use of Linux or GNU/Linux or any other phrase. My opinion is my own, and even though I have been using the term Linux for years (that is what I was introduced to) I would never consider changing to use the term GNU/Linux as 1) it is a mouthful 2) why should GNU get all the credit? 3) how many "newbies" will know the term GNU/Linux over Linux?

Yes, GNU has contributed many good tools to the project, and should be credited for that, but not in sharing the Linux name. Can you imagine if Microsoft was forced to have to include every company that had contributed some tools to Windows in their name, it would be even longer than their current Windows names by around a dozen extra names!

~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jam,

First I have no affiliations with any company or organization of any kind. I am just an ordinary computer user who like many out there came by chance across this operating system you love to call Linux. I have spent time and money to learn the basics of the system and I am always learning more about it. So I am not trying to sell anything or to convert anyone.

I want to share with people coming for the first time to use the operating system is that if he or she wants to find the origins of the operating system that some call "Linux" and some call GNU/Linux it is found in the GNU Project which as I learned was used by people such as Linus Torvalds and others who later created the Open Source group. Why do people learning about the system can not enjoy the same right to know as Linus had that many tools can be obtained freely and directly from the FSF website without having to pay one cent? Of course Torvalds and anyone who collaborates to develop software deserves credit. But so does the FSF and the GNU project. But if you delete any mention of GNU how can you be fair then? The reason why this operating system could make such a great progress is because the software and the documentation has been freely available. But if the new users get directed into other directions, and we end up having to pay a company each time we want to get information about the operating system, we are going to lose that what made the system possible in the first place. When Torvalds was a young student without much money to spend on expensive books or software, he could just go to the Internet and get for free software and documentation from the GNU project. So why not let others do the same by leading them to the right place?

Other than that I have no other motivations. And you? Bald Eeagle (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The intro, again

Left this comment on user talk:Mattl, but repeating here to justify the revert:

I've reverted this change. Articles aren't written from the point of view of their subjects, and an objective appraisal of gNewSense at this point would be that it's an Ubuntu variant. Whether that makes it a "variant of the GNU operating system which uses the Linux kernel" or not, Wikipedia refers to such things as "Linux distributions" pretty consistently, and allowing projects to use their own terminology decreases Wikipedia's consistency and makes it more confusing to casual readers.

I see this change has swiftly been reverted, but I reckon there's reasonable grounds for going back. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The largest contributor to gNewSense is GNU. GNU is also the largest contributor to Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. This is an encyclopedia, so our duty is to represent the facts. The lack of acknowledgement of GNU mostly occurs in the advertising campaigns and communication strategies of some companies that have a commercial interest in undermining the public's awareness of software freedom issues. Wikipedia is not an arm in these communication strategies, and mirroring advertising campaigns is not Wikipedia's aim. Just the facts, please. It's GNU. --Gronky (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The usual spiel. Articles are not written from the point of view of their subjects, and Wikipedia should refer to all "variant of the GNU operating system which uses the Linux kernel" by the same term. Overwhelmingly, such things are referred to as "Linux distributions" in the wild. Wikipedia is no more of an "arm in the communication strategies" of that minority which believes that all Linux distros incorporating GNU software should be referred to as "variants of the GNU system" than it is of some nebulous company (which I am, apparently, implicitly involved with) which seeks to "undermine the public's awareness of software freedom issues". Consistency and objectivity are the goals here, and this talk page is not an appropriate forum to argue that Wikipedia should change its stance. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

gNewSense represents the first official FSF/GNU supported distro since Debian GNU/Linux. The fact is, gNewSense is an attempt to release the GNU Operating System for people to use. It differs dramatically from typical "Linux distributions" in that its goals are not convieninece, but freedom. This should not be understated, as there are virtually no distributions of GNU/Linux currently without proprietary software. I'd argue that not all operating systems with Linux as a kernel are born equally, and that gNewSense represents a change in approach to the norm, and therefore the edit I made was correct. Mattl (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Then the article should present the project's goals in this way, and state that this is the position of the project. It should not present this information in this format in the article lead, because this is writing the article from the point of view of the project. I shouldn't have to explain why this is undesirable from an encyclopedia's perspective. We don't allow articles on commercial distros to redefine the way they present themselves, and nor should we allow it for distros which fight for software freedom. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to Assume Good Faith rather than talking about "the usual spiel". Although it is correct that articles are not written from the point of view of their subjects it is not correct that articles should misrepresent the facts about those subjects in the name of consistency. To do so discards objectivity and imposes bias. Consistency should be a means, not an end, and here it is only a means to misrepresentation and confusion. - (Rob Myers, not signed in.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.138.4 (talk) 12:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gronky and I are well aware of each other's respective positions on the subject; I need not take his arguments on faith, though I could have elaborated that rather than addressing my point he was simply repeating a position statement (which is not conductive to debate). "Misrepresenting the facts" would apply if there were actually something being misrepresented, but given that "variants of GNU which use the Linux kernel" and "Linux distributions" are logically equivalent in this case there's no misrepresentation going on by using the non-POV term. The current lead misrepresents facts by presenting them from the project's own POV. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For the first mentioned point, Gnewsense is parasitic on Ubuntu ? which is actually parasitic on Debian, which states on its website its GNU/linux which would be a correct representation of the fact. Mion (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Parasitic"? Unless you want to try to convince everyone that Ubuntu has to be referred to as GNU/Linux because of its Debian heritage, I don't think piggybacking titles is going to work. And once again, gNewSense could call itself a banana sandwich if it wanted to, but it still quacks like a Linux distribution. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No Ubuntu would be something like GNU/Linux/Adware, but whe're not discussing Ubuntu here, the naming GNU/Linux is confirmed by GNU and by Debian, so the statement referring "gNewSense could call itself a banana sandwich" looks invalid. Mion (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand your rationale here. "Confirmed by GNU and Debian"? gNewSense isn't based on Debian. It's based on Ubuntu. The "adware" thing, well, I just don't get what you're trying to say, other than to guess that it's an attempt to discredit Ubuntu for whatever reason. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The rationale is that Debian - Ubuntu - GnewSense is GNU/Linux, as Ubuntu is based on Debian which is GNU/Linux, now the people from Ubuntu could call itself a banana sandwich. However we are not discussing Ubuntu here. Mion (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true that gNewSense is based on Ubuntu. However, the project itself has goals of producing a single distro that removes non-free software from Ubuntu and Debian[1]. The LiveCD is also built from Debian[2]. This kind of information takes a little digging to find, and it's not yet clear what the distro's goals are regarding Debian, but discussion of Debian seems relevant here, alongside Ubuntu. Technobadger (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see the intro has now been vetted of any mention of "Linux". I don't believe this is appropriate, because the intro now fails to provide a reasonably complete summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a quote from the projects homepage - "A GNU/Linux distribution, that takes all the non-free blobs out of a rather popular distribution and makes it free." - I believe this is adequate. Mattl (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This reads very obviously like a quote is being used instead of prose in order to circumvent having to use the term "Linux distribution" (or, indeed, Ubuntu). I don't see that it's an improvement over the original version, which didn't need a quote and still made the project's position on the name clear. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as i know NPOV in an article is reached by adding both aspects in an article to balance it, see history (+setting back, both stances /both sides are mentioned, linux and gnu, so it can't be POV. Mion (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No; that's multiple sympathetic points of view, which is a different kettle of fish. Aside from the poor style of using "operating system" twice in one sentence, the phrasing of the project as "combining the GNU operating system with the Linux kernel" in the intro summary breaks from Wikipedia's naming conventions arbitrarily, because this isn't how Wikipedia phrases such a "combination" in any other free OS article. And articles are not written from the point of view of their respective subjects. There was nothing wrong with the objectivity of the previous version. Contentious material should, where possible, be removed. The words GNU operating system are wikilinked in the next section, so they're not being deleted from the article but just shifted out of the intro where they're contentious. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not symphatic to either one of them, by mentioning Linux it is the stance of Linux Torvalds choice, by mentioning GNU it is Stallmans stance, so i deny the multiple sympathetic points of view option, and it seems you are willing to open up a whole register of reasons to support your opinion, which is fine, but i think that it should be the other way around that you try to reach consensus about it with the other editors before you remove it, (not the other way around as it is now). Cheers Mion (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd reason to change edits.

After reading this I understand why Thumperward is so keen on trying to force everyone here to accept his point of view:

Beginning of quote from Jam's talk page:

       "Just weather it out. They're very vocal, but very much a minority. It's odd, normally I take it pretty hard 
when I get attacked on here but there's something pretty awesome about being singled out for bending the whole project 
to my iron will every few months on Talk:Linux or the like. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

           Yes, you seem to have become somewhat of a celebrity for having control of the whole project. I feel honoured to be 
in the presence of such a person :). ~~ [Jam][talk] 13:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)"

End of quote

Thumperward you do not delete the contributions of others as you say of a consensus. So far you have not anyone here where that consensus is. After reading this it seems clear you do it just because you like to get a lot of attention.

Bald Eeagle (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)