Talk:Linux

Missing image
Cscr-former.png
Former featured article candidate

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates (where the individual nomination does not exist) please check the archive. Once the objections have been met you may resubmit the article for featured article status.

Embedded Linux

This article is focused on Linux on the desktop. This is quite reasonable given its history and contemporary. Still, it would be nice to have a track about Linux on embedded and real-time systems. This area is gaining momentum. It is just a matter of time, I guess, until there are more embedded users of Linux than desktop users, considering the Motorola Linux mobile phones for example. --Jan Tångring 15:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Embedded Linux. Conan 18:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll put a link there in the See also section. Still, I think the disposition is unfairly tilted towards desktop Linux. I also have a theory on why, to quote Hannibal Lector, "you covet what you see." - Linux on the desktop is before our eyes everyday. But I think its influence in the embedded world is becoming just as great. No current good idea on how to balance this, though. --Jan Tångring 09:25, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

>I agree, the article needs polishing as it really seems to be biased and should be more broad as to mention that Linux exists on multi-platform and not just on the PC, otherwise the title of this article should more suitably be-> "Linux on PC" --Jagginess Apr 22 2005

"most famous"

I maintain that "most famous" is the case, and don't really see how you can call it 'original research.' If you want a reference, here's The Economist, June 12-18, 2004, p16 (leader, Open Source: Beyond Capitalism?): "By far the best-known example of open-source software is Linux, an operating system that is maintained by volunteers around the world, runs on everything from wristwatches to mainframes and now powers one in five of the world's server computers." It's the example the ~~magazine~~ newspaper uses to talk about open content in general. Or, in the same issue, Technology Quarterly p15, An open-source shot in the arm?, on open content in biology research; the article starts: "The open-source model is a good way to produce software, as the example of Linux shows. Could the same collaborative approach now revitalise medical research too?" In the technical press, Linux is used as the example of the open collaboration model for analogy to such things as Groklaw's response to the SCO Group.

It's sufficiently famous that it gets used as the example of not merely open source, but open content in general. I don't see that this can reasonably be disputed - David Gerard 07:50, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What if one were to define popularity by the userbase? In that case, I'm fairly certain that GCC would be the most popular example of open source software. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Examples states "facts are items that can be validated on demand in such a way that a reasonable person would accept the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt". I would assume a "reasonable person" to use the userbase to define the popularity of something.

So are we defining it by technical types or by the mainstream? "most famous" seems to me to imply the latter. Linux is in fact famous in a way that other FS/OSS is not - David Gerard 16:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

~~And, moreover, you and I had this exact same discussion on Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy - David Gerard 10:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)~~ No it wasn't, was it. But it certainly covered Linux being the standard simile for open development - David Gerard 10:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have never even edited Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy. Nor have I edited GNU/Linux naming controversy. What are you talking about?

This was an answer to user:stevenj on the previous attempt to remove the statement. See date - David Gerard 16:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see this has come up again. I say "most famous" because it's the example I see in the mainstream press (newspapers and so on) whenever they have the pain of trying to explain this "open source" thing, and frequently when they try to explain this "open content" thing. I'm not talking about Slashdot and Wired.

User:Darrien suggests "widely regarded as the most famous example of", but that doesn't say who it's most widely regarded as by, and doesn't to me make much sense as a sentence. What's it actually asserting?

A google news search on "open source" turns up one non-tech press example, in the Winston-Salem Journal [1] (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031776887223&path=!business&s=1037645507703), which says "The best known open-source software, the Linux operating system". That's also the first hit. As noted above The Economist uses Linux as its example for both open source and open content.

I see this usage all the time. (Darrien would probably regard it as "gratuitous," but it's how they use it.) If someone really doesn't want that phrasing here, I suggest you come up with some strong counterexamples - e.g. mainstream press using something else, not "Linux" David Gerard 14:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to assume from what you've said that you are defining popularity by how well recognized it is in the mainstream media. If that is the case, then the sentence should read "Mainstream media considers it to be the most famous example of free software and of open-source development." - Darrien 16:07, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

That strikes me as a needlessly elaborate construction and would be only needed if there were cases of others that don't. What are the implied cases of others that don't, and do you have hard evidence for those cases? - David Gerard 16:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Darrien, the relevant section of the article asserts nothing about the popularity of Linux, whether you mean it in its traditional sense (approval, favor, or acceptance by many people) or how you are suggesting it above (widespread use). The article asserts that Linux is the most famous (most widely known, most noted in public report) example of open-source.

While it may be appropriate to change the wording to "most"- "well-known", "conspicuous", "remarkable", or "noted" example of open-source, the essence of this meaning remains true and you must provide examples of open-source software that is more famous in order to disprove the present assertion of the article, as there are numerous examples in public report of its conspicuousness. I highly doubt you will find a person who knows what "GCC" is who have heard of it but does not know what "Linux" is and have not heard of it. In other words, the set of people who know what Linux is includes the set of people who know what "GCC" is. Linux is far more famous than "GCC". If, for instance, you do a search on Google News for "Linux" you will find about 7,000 results. If you do a search for "GCC" you will find about 400, the vast majority of which (indeed, all the ones of the first page), have nothing to do with the compiler collection. If you do a search for "GCC compiler" (no quotes in the search), you will find about 20. - Centrx 20:41, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Very well, I will accept "most famous".

In the future, please do not edit comments I have made.

Darrien 02:54, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

I did not edit the text of your comments, so I did not change their meaning, syntax, or diction. I only added a signature--which is in the appropriate interest of clarity because the comment was not signed--and realigned another signature after I had erroneously--I'm sorry--added a signature. It is unfortunate that the Wikipedia diff's display a wholesale change of paragraph when there are the most minor of changes in spacing. - Centrx 03:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If someone's comments on a talk page aren't signed, others are entitled to sign them, so as to make it quite clear who said what - David Gerard 09:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. My comments were clearly signed and did not need to be changed.

Darrien 10:32, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

The third paragraph of this section, beginning with "What if one were to define..." and ending with "...define the popularity of something" is not currently signed.

It is at the same level of indentation as my signature, therefore, it is signed.

This paragraph was the one which I added a signature to, and from which you subsequently removed that signature. If you would not like your name on it--even though it is in the Page History--then it should be signed with "Anonymous". - Centrx 01:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My name is already attributed to it, if you cannot understand the standard usenet and email methods of attribution, then please feel free to not read my comments.

Darrien 02:15, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

This is not Usenet or e-mail, and the standard Usenet and e-mail methods of attributions prepend each line with a > or some other note, and the subordination of the communiques, each with their own From addresses, is indicated by threading, which is much more like the way the comments are denoted on the Wikipedia. The comments on the Wikipedia are much more like the threading of Usenet and e-mail, which allow an ordination of many levels of response, than the quoting you are referring to. The way your comment is signed is not the way the signature of comments are commonly indicated on the Wikipedia. It is unclear to someone reading the comments, and it makes it impossible to clearly respond to ordinate comments. For instance, were I to respond to the first comment in this section, the standard way of doing this on the Wikipedia would be to put me comment one indent to the right of David Gerard's original comment. If this were done, my comment would not distinguishable without jerry-rigging its location, which is not a solution that works in all cases. Although this is a result of another person ambiguously interjecting their comments, the way it stands now is not viable and must be clarified. Centrx 03:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was not vandalism, it was the correction of an UNVERIFIABLE AND ARGUABLY FALSE STATEMENT. - Rokcathang 07:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please do not make disputed changes without allowing some time for discussion on this page. In this case, you modified the page again only a minute after posting this comment. Also, you must provide some evidence of this statement. Mozilla, the example you indicated in your edit comment, has about 1200 news articles on Google News compared to Linux's 7000. On Yahoo News, the numbers are about 1000 compared to about 6400. On a Lexis-Nexus news search, there are 7 news items mentioning Mozilla to 119 results mentioning Linux in the past week. If you do an ordinary Google search, there are about 103 million results for "Linux" and about 13.5 million results for "Mozilla". The famousness of Mozilla over Linux is not patent and must be supported by some evidence.

Considerable evidence has been provided of the famousness of Linux in public report and in general use, and there has been none that leads to the conclusion that Linux is not the most famous example. - Centrx 22:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Likewise, the famousness of Linux over Mozilla is not patent and must be supported by some CREDIBLE evidence. Your use of Internet news searches to determine overall famousness is tenuous at best.

"One of the most famous examples of," is a superset above, "the most famous example of," -- it is inclusive. Therefore, even if Linux is indeed the most famous, my replacement would still be valid.

However, I contend that Mozilla is famous enough to challenge Linux's famousness. It is available on just about every Linux distribution I can find and is also available on Windows and *BSD. Consider: some people use Mozilla and know nothing of Linux, everyone who uses Linux knows about Mozilla (granted, "everyone" may be a bit farfetched, but I'd say a large majority of Linux users know of Mozilla).

Again, I suggest the use of my replacement since a. it is valid whether or not Linux is the most famous, and b. Mozilla presents enough of a challenge to warrant at least replacement of the claim until credible evidence suggests a change back (Google News? Come on, guys. You can do better than that.) - Rokcathang 22:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note that the searches I used above were for a recent comparison of Linux and Mozilla. Earlier in the discussion of this section, examples from The Economist were used, and I have seen Linux used to exemplify open-source several times in The New York Times as well. These Internet news sites catalog many paper newspapers and magazines. They are as credible as the original sources whence they came. Indeed, it is the Internet news supersites that spider online news sources which indicate a greater presence of Mozilla. Lexis-Nexis, which only looks at print sources, indicates a lesser presence of Mozilla compared to Linux than do Google News and Yahoo News.

Re: your argument that the famousness of Mozilla is a superset of Linux is not necessarily valid. Linux is often referred to in the mainstream press such that people who are not familiar with computing and know nothing of Mozilla still know about Linux. The premise of my above argument about GCC was that it was not a thing heard of by the average person, which is quite reasonable, whereas Linux has a far greater popularity to the average person. It was more of an explanation or illustration of why Linux is more famous than GCC, based on what can be obviously accepted, than a proof of the fact. Largely, though, it was not necessarily consequential because the opposite argument was premised on a misreading.- Centrx 22:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You may say it's "arguably false", but you haven't supplied an actual ... argument. The question is not "does Mozilla get as many hits as Linux?" but, "What is the most famous example of open source development?" The example the newspapers bring up EVERY TIME is Linux. Mozilla (usually Firefox) gets mentioned of late in the context of Internet Explorer security holes, not in the context of open source per se.

(Two more uses of Linux as standard example: Financial Times (UK), Wed 28 July. One in an article on open source in general, the other in an article on Wikipedia.) - David Gerard 07:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are incorrect.

Wikipedia is completely broken - you will not let anything on the page that you do not personally agree with. This violates NPOV but of course you don't care. Let me outline this for you:

Even if Linux is the most famous example of open source software, the statement "Linux is one of the most famous examples of open source..." is still entirely valid and is much less biased.

You are a mindless zealot and I hate this web page. What a good concept corrupted by zealotry. - Rokcathang

Rather, I will not let anything on the page that is highly disputed and has not been even somewhat agreed by discussion. The status quo and the conclusion of the previous discussion are that the present wording is accurate and appropriate. In order for this to change, there must at the very least be a reasonable time for discussion to take place. As it stands, it has been less than four hours since your original fervid and unsupported comment in favor, and less than three hours since your more reasonable comment in favor. This is an extremely short time for deliberation worthy of an encyclopedia and is insufficient for others to weigh in on the discussion. As for myself, I found your argument much more convincing than your fits of ill-temper would indicate, but withheld my own conclusions in light of your previous and present passion, which may color your judgement, and in anticipation of relevant comments from others, who have indicated before that they do not support your position.

In contrast to your statement, it seems that you, instead, seem have been carried away by an excess of zeal, and you have certainly demonstrated that you are fond of insults. Also note that this is only one article among hundreds of thousands in this encyclopedia to which you might contribute, but please remember that your vitriolic disdain will not be tolerated in any of these pages. - Centrx 01:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It may be "entirely valid", but the fact (which I've provided evidence for and which you haven't, preferring abuse and attempted revert warring) that Linux is famous in a way that other FS/OSS is not (though Firefox is busting arse to get there) is IMO sufficiently notable as a phenomenon to warrant the stronger phrasing. I really don't see the point of gratuitous weasel wording when the direct form of the statement is, as far as I can see, actually true - David Gerard 07:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also found the second sentence to sound a little strange. I agree Linux is the most famous example but does it what Linux is about? It is true that Linux is frequently used as an example but it is really needless to say so in order to discuss what Linux is in an encyclopedia. Say, maybe not a good example but Poker is seen as an example of gambling but we don't care if it is the famous example or not at all. If we want to make some connection between Linux and open source and its development model, we can just say so in a straightforward way, like "Linux is famous for its open development style in which everyone could see its details and contributes fixes or additional features." Many things could be true about Linux but this is a question of relevance. -- Taku 07:54, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Poker is not heads above other games in terms of recognition as a game of gambling; it is not an archetype of gambling models and, indeed, it is less gambling than most every other game with chance. It doesn't serve as a good example because it does not exemplify open-source in the same way that Linux does. It is not recognizable as a game of gambling in a recognition that is unlike the recognition of every other game of gambling. It was not at the forefront of propelling gambling to heights far beyond those it had before. - Centrx 21:09, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I agree that Linux is a good example. My point is that it looks strange to say it at the very first paragraph. -- Taku 01:32, Jul 30, 2004

"Excitement surrounding Linux is not just about its quality as an operating system but its development model common to free software and open content." That does appear to be a grammatical sentence, but only just - in every other way I can see it's a non-improvement. I really don't think such convoluted grammar is defensible in the second sentence of an article.

It's not just a "good" example - it appears to be the standard example. This is notable, so therefore is noted - David Gerard 17:04, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please note that I am not debating if Linux is famous, good, or whatever example. You still didn't show why the very second sentence of the first paragraph needs to mention Linux is an example in whatever sense. -- Taku 23:04, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

One of the main things that makes Linux notable, other than being an operating system, and being good, bad, or whatever else it might be, is that a) it's open source, and b) it's the most famous/successful/well-known example of open source software in the world. I think this is worth mentioning in the first paragraph. —Kate | Talk 23:16, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)

I see, so this is disagreement we have. I think what makes Linux notable, is

- its quality (Linux is a good Unix after all)
- it is s open-source and Linux gives a proof that open source model could yield a quality product.

What bothers me is not if Linux is good, famous, well-known or whatever, but why it is worth to call it the famous example. That is true, but I mean, can we focus on what makes Linux the famous example? It sounds like Sep11 is the famous example of terrorism. It is true but what matters is not whether Sep11 is an example or not but Sep11 was an unprecedented event; it shocked all of us; how destructive it is. I think all buzz about Linux is that it is not developed in a traditional way of development despite its quality. -- Taku 06:04, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

But the reason that Linux is so well known outside 'technical' circles (more so than Solaris, FreeBSD, or probably any OS other than Windows) is because it's open source. People don't hear about it because it's good—they hear about it because it's open source. Yes, it's likely it wouldn't be so well known if it was crap, but that's an indirect cause (and I don't think Linux is all that much better than Solaris or FreeBSD from a technical viewpoint). An article about Linux that didn't mention its success as an example of open source would be absurd, and I think that success is worthy of inclusion on the first paragraph. —Kate | Talk 06:15, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

No, Linux is well-known outside hackers communities because it is popular among hackers. -- Taku 06:40, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

vi and Emacs are popular among hackers. I really doubt they're as widely known as Linux. —Kate | Talk 06:54, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Well, Linux is more popular than Emacs even among tech-savvy people. -- Taku 07:03, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

External Link: Linux.com vs. Linux.org

I would much prefer to see Linux.org as an external link than Linux.com. I haven't looked at Linux.com in detail lately, in fact I rarely go there because Linux.org has historically been much more comprensive. Linux.org also has a long history of serving the Linux community in a non-profit way, whereas linux.com is an arm of a, however community minded, for-profit company and is therefore less dedicated to Linux than it is to its shareholders. (FWIW, for a long time, IIRC, the ownership of Linux.com was in dispute and the site had little content.)

Most importantly, Linux.org is just all-around a more well-rounded resource and better serves as a starting point for the general reader.

Rather than just make this change I wanted to come to some consensus in this forum as I'm sure the page content is often in dispute. I leave it to the page's self appointed editors to make the alteration. (I hope this is the right place to make this sort of request.) - Anonymous

I agree, it seems the only reason "Linux.com" might be there is because it happens to have that domain name, whereas "Linux.org" is much more appropriate. Also, this is exactly the right place to make this sort of request, suggestion, present issues, etc. and going through this page was a reasonable course of action. - Centrx 05:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that cutting the previous ridiculously lengthy links list (longer than the article, and leading to a ridiculous table of contents) was an excellent idea and has made for a better article. Now we need to keep a close watch on link creep. Not everything needs a link, and Wikipedia is not dMoz. CULL! CULL! CULL!

(Lists like that come from a desire for one's favourite link to go in, which means everyone else's go in. It's like examples of anything - including all or none can be the only way to get the advocates to STFU.) - David Gerard 16:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The proposal here is to replace Linux.com with Linux.org, which would not increase the size of the list, and would be a more appropriate site to link to. - Centrx 22:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What? Linux.com and Linux.org are both already there. —Kate | Talk 22:17, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

I left both Linux.com and Linux.org because the last time I heard anything about Linux.com (which was several years ago, when VA Linux was doing the IPO thing...) it'd been redone and (I think) was actually useful. If it's not, it can of course be removed... is either of them more "official" than the other?

Someone has also put linuxquestions.org back. Is that a useful thing to link to? —Kate | Talk 16:20, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

Linuxquestions.org may or may not be useful, it's a good idea. (OTOH IRC (http://www.linux.org/docs/irc.html) could be a better approach.) None the less, any Linux help site that (to this day) deliberately avoids (http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/02/09/25/1359244.shtml) placing a prominent link to the The Linux Documentation project leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (If they wanted to mirror the tldp.org content that'd be fine too.) I don't know if Wikipedia has any policies regarding veanality in external links, but their actions regards this matter leaves me the feeling that Linuxquestions.org is more intrested in helping themselves than helping the new Linux user. -- Thread origniator 14:26, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of open source articles with link problems, see Talk:Mozilla Firefox. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There isn't a policy, but there is common sense - the extlinks should be, if not canonical or actual references for the article, be very good indeed. IMO. And Mozilla and Mozilla Firefox do have similarly problematic link lists to the one Linux used to - David Gerard 17:57, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistent Redirect

I'm not sure what is really desired, but I would like to point out that GNU/Linux and Gnu/Linux redirect to two different locations, one of which is this page. Dataphile 01:09, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

I have fixed both to point here, on the assumption that most people will be looking for Linux. —Kate | Talk 01:19, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Then noticed that David Gerard did this before then undid it. I've asked him why it's like this... —Kate | Talk 01:22, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

The first was a few months ago, which you will see discussed in /Archive1. I pointed it at GNU/Linux naming controversy, but looked at its actual usage, which showed this was gravely erroneous, and pointed it here ;-) The second, this is the first I've seen of it existing. Anyway, it's all lovely now - David Gerard 17:57, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"See also" vs. "Related articles"

Where does it say that "See also" is standard. On the Wikipedia:Guide to layout page, it indicates "Related topics". Nevertheless, "Related articles" is a much more appropriate heading for a section. It describes generally the subject of the section, whereas "See also" is a command that is more appropriate for subordinate content. Simply, it is not a valid heading for an encyclopedia article and from seeing it on the table of contents it is not nearly as clear as "Related articles". - Centrx 20:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I almost never see "Related articles" rather than "See also". If it isn't in the MOS then it damn well should be - David Gerard 09:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They do not mean the same, see also means other topics which might be of interest which may or may not be directly related to the current one and related topics lists topics related to the current one. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=User_talk:%C6var_Arnfj%F6r%F0_Bjarmason&action=edit&section=new) 10:43, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Well, the links in the relevant section of this article then belong under a section titled "Related articles", for they are directly related to the current one. Also, it would seem to me that many "other topics which might be of interest" should not be linked, in light of the extensive, to the point of excess, list of links, internal and external, that are found in any good article. - Centrx 14:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But what of being an appropriate section heading? It's really not. - Centrx 14:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have put back the section (which was erased during an edit) and named it "Related articles", but changed it back to See also, because of other exemples like Montreal or Gross domestic product. - Sepper 22:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"It was designed to be like Minix"

I have a problem with this line. AFAIK (and even mentioned later in the article) Linux was designed to replace Minix on Linus computer. The original line sounds too much like that guy (forgot his name already) who recently tried to "prove" in a poorly researched book that Linus didn't write Linux but stole code from Minix. TToni

I agree with you. If the page wasn't blocked I would have changed it already.

How about:

- Linus originally used Minux on his computer. But Andrew Tanenbaum did not support creating extensions to this operating system. This prompted Linus to write a replacement for Minux. Although, originally a running Minux system was necessary to install and run Linux, the Linux system quickly surpassed Minux. The two systems do not share code and are only alike in as far as the both implement unix. Sander123 13:45, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's OK from the content, though a bit too long maybe (I would strike the last sentence). And it was "Minix", not "Minux", right? TToni

Huh. The article is not blocked any longer, so I reworked your proposal a little bit and put it in. I'm not completely satisfied with it, but it's definitely better than before. Have to get back to work now, so feel free to make it better :-) TToni 12:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- I noticed you put it in. Thanks, reworked version is better. Sander123 08:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Linux maintainers

I think is important to say who are the Linux maintainers here or at least put a link to Linux_maintainers

Spanish link

Could somebody please put this link.

es:Linux

There's a link there already, isn't there(?) . What else is needed?--Jondel 01:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

External links

The collection of external links confuses me.

There's too many links to distros without any context as to what makes them different.
Running linux 'on' windows is not really running linux, although it can be an intro to linux for windows users. Some distinction should be made.
Bochs, VMware and Cygwin have nothing to do with linux, even if they are often used together with linux. Plex86 is a linux vm, running on linux, and is obselete. VMs in general add little to an understanding of linux.
There is no link to kernel.org.

Thought I should put this up instead of changing for a disputed page. jericho4.0 05:24, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would encorage you to make these changes. They seem right to me. JesseW 09:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From cygwin FAQ: What is it? The Cygwin tools are ports of the popular GNU development tools for Microsoft Windows. They run thanks to the Cygwin library which provides the UNIX system calls and environment these programs expect.

Saying that it is "linux in windows" is at the very least somewhat misleading. Pfortuny 08:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hotmail does not run anymore on linux

This can easily be proved this if anyone would like. It used to be though. Info needs tobe updated.--Jondel 02:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The statement isn't just old, it's incorrect. (Hotmail used to run on FreeBSD.) The misinfo was recently added by an anonymous editor, along with a bunch of other unsubstantiated boasting about how Linux is taking over the world. I'm paring that down to the actual facts. Tverbeek

People use the term "linux" loosly to describe open source software in general. Linux is no good without glibc, coreutils, bash (or any shell), etc -- so you end up with a GNU/Linux which is an opensource operating system that uses the linux kernel. So when people said "hotmail runs on linux" what they meant is "hotmail runs on open source software" -- the typical person doesnt understand the diference between the 2 and its unimportant since the services and base system, shell, applications, etc are identical on *bsd and gnu/linux. In anycase -- all external servers that route the connection to god knows what are now on windows and there is no way of checking what operating system is used internally. It may well still be FreeBSD and there is a good chance it is indeed. --Hackeron 19:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hotmail never ran linux. I doubt it does now. Around 2001 (IIRC) Microsoft switched it over from FreeBSD (One of the largest FreeBSD farms in the world at the time, actually) to Windows Server.... and *crash* down it went. The incident was rather notable, and was much lauded by open-source advocates and zealots alike. But the hotmail (now: passport) all run Windows Server. - rernst 05:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't this article have a section of criticisms frequently raised by detractors? Having a monolithic kernel, the lack of usability, and the perceived arrogance of certain Linux advocates can be a starting point for this section. DHN 07:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many would disagree with the lack of usability, and the arrogance of certain users doesn’t seem to have anything to do with Linux itself, but the criticisms of the monolithic design is indeed quite important and has been since the very beginning. There was a large discussion on comp.os.minix back in 1992 between Linus Torvalds and Andrew Tanenbaum. The entire thread is available on Google Groups. [2] (http://www.google.com/groups?threadm=12595%40star.cs.vu.nl) It is mentioned in the Linux kernel article in section Architecture. Rafał Pocztarski 14:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You want it? Add it! -- if what you add is inaccurate, it will be corrected. --Hackeron 19:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, please don't add it unless you are willing to cite and quote specific, encyclopedic sources (newspaper articles, prominent computer scientists, etcetera). No weasel phrases like "some people say", and no random usenetters or slashdotters (conducting a survey to find "representative" postings is original research). —Steven G. Johnson 23:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

The 1992 comp.os.minix discussion I have referenced above [3] (http://www.google.com/groups?threadm=12595%40star.cs.vu.nl) included Andrew Tanenbaum, David Megginson, Ken Thompson, Linus Torvalds, David Miller, et al. See also the appendix to Open Sources. [4] (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/appa.html) Other important people to quote and reference would be Norman Hardy [5] (http://www.cap-lore.com/) and Richard Stallman. Of course I am talking about the monolithic kernels and microkernels design, as I have stated above, not about the usability or arrogance which is purely a matter of opinion. Rafał Pocztarski 19:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note that kernel-specific criticisms belong on the Linux kernel page. —Steven G. Johnson 20:11, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I have mentioned it above. Rafał Pocztarski 21:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probably a better starting point would be the criticisms from Microsoft and so forth. Note that here I'm talking about criticisms that got notice, not whether or not they're valid per se - David Gerard 23:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"A typical Debian desktop"

The Debian thumbnail image under "Usability, market share and moving from Windows" states "A typical Debian desktop" when in truth this is not a typical Debian desktop. Its more like a typical Debian desktop that has been fixed up extensivly.

I could put in a screenshot of my Debian laptop running twm ;-) - David Gerard 22:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"commonly used to describe"

Anon, do us the courtesy of reading the whole damn talk page before attempting to system-game by referring to it. I think someone would have to be a drooling idiot not to notice the common usage, such as in the mass media, of "Linux" to refer to the whole operating systems. See the commented-out link to The Economist in the source of the page. Do a search on Google News. Pretty much no-one in the "wider world" calls the operating systems anything but "Linux", whether you lost a flamewar or no - David Gerard 04:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. That "common" usage of the term refers to a complete operating system is easy to verify. Not everybody is happy about it, but it's a fact. Geez, use some common sense. Rl 12:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Piped link

Someone removed the piped link ('also known as'), but it was reverted [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux&curid=17506&diff=0&oldid=0). When I think about it, though, this link is poorly implemented (as explained in Wikipedia:Piped link), and I think it needs changing after all... Although not much information is lost when printed (as it still states in this article what it actually is 'also known as'). What do you think? --Spug 12:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Linus" vs. "Torvalds"

In several places (but not everywhere), Linus Torvalds is referred to using only his first name as in "Linus originally used Minix on his computer". Shouldn't it say "Torvalds" or "Linus Torvalds" instead? We don't say "Andrew did not support extensions..." we say "Tannenbaum did not..."

I agree with this, it should definately be changed to match the above.

I understand why we use Linus insted of Thorvalds. Both are non-english names and therefore non-mistaken. If I shoud say Andrew, you whoud go "Andrew who?". But if I shoud say Linus you would know who I talk about.

But why do we use Linus insted of Thorvalds? The awnser is simple. Who is Linus? The guy who made Linux. Everybody connects that easy, even those who havn`t heard of Linus.

Intro

I don't have strong feelings about changing the intro per se, but please use the talk page before doing so, even if you don't see how your change could possibly be controversial. Because even if it isn't, it will attract others, confused people or those with an axe to grind. Rl 08:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Navigational template

I'm writing a navigational template for GNU/Linux - various distros and the like will be linked. See Template:Linux if you would like to help. Alphax ^τεχ 02:29, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? No? Ok. No pretty box for you! Alphax ^τεχ 13:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Someone created a page about the history of Linux on Lesson 2, obviously mistitled, can someone see if there's something to merge here? Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a copyvio to me. The text has been posted many times on the Web. Rl 13:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GNU/Linux naming controversy

The article mentions the naming controversy but doesn't describe the reasons for the controversy. The article doesn't state explicity the reasons why the FSF wants GNU mentioned, history is mentioned and it's hinted perhaps they want more of the credit, but I assume they also want GNU mentioned so freedom is emphasized. The article does not convey that point at all currently. The article also should have an expanded mention of the GPL in my opinion, currently the article doesn't even hint at what the GPL is all about (which is perhaps one way of looking at the essence of Linux). zen master T 00:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We do have a whole page about the GNU/Linux naming controversy, named curiously GNU/Linux naming controversy which is linked from the Linux page. Same for GNU General Public License. AlistairMcMillan 00:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some synopsis of the essence of the controversy should be mentioned in this article. Also, it should be alleged that the GPL was and is a big part of Linux's success and why the license terms matter to some developers. zen master T 05:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have any more comments on this before I start adding GPL relevance info to this article? zen master T 06:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mascot

You might have noticed my latest edit... the penguin mascot can be called "plump" or "cute", but frankly, I think that they're both POV. Linus Torvalds specifically said this:

"Now, when you think about penguins, first take a deep calming breath, and then think "cuddly". Take another breath, and think "cute". Go back to "cuddly" for a while (and go on breathing), then think "contented".

With me so far? Good..

Now, with penguins, (cuddly such), "contented" means it has either just gotten laid, or it's stuffed on herring. Take it from me, I'm an expert on penguins, those are really the only two options.

Now, working on that angle, we don't really want to be associated with a randy penguin (well, we do, but it's not politic, so we won't), so we should be looking at the "stuffed to its brim with herring" angle here...

...Ok, so we should be thinking of a lovable, cuddly, stuffed penguin sitting down after having gorged itself on herring..." -Linus Torvalds (source: Why Linus Chose a Penguin (http://www.linux.org/info/penguin.html)

With that... let the edit war begin ;-) --Linuxbeak 21:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Infamous TCOs of Linux

Have we considered adding the results of this study (http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/better_choice.html?tab=tco) to the page? - 203.35.154.254 06:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linux vs linux

Somebody just "corrected" a contribution of mine, changing "linux" to "Linux". I checked and got confirmation that in all cited sources on this page (e.g. [7] (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1992Apr23.123216.22024%40klaava.Helsinki.FI)), Linus Torvalds always refers to "linux" and never to "Linux". (In the transcription of the sound file "Hello...I pronounce..." is written "Linux", but this is not Torvald's fault.)

For me, it's completely new to see "Linux". If this is the new "standard", it's certainly a commercial issue. The original, free, linux was always written linux. I am, and will ever remain, a linux user, and not a Linux user. MFH 19:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In that case, you and Torvalds are the only people in the world spelling it without the initial capital.

I could live with that, but I doubt you're right. MFH

By the way, you commented 7 hours and 23 minutes after 12 noon UTC - David Gerard 01:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what? 12+7=19, of course. Anyway, this timestamp stuff is done by the system.

(I'm not sure I understand you fully. Could you elaborate on that? [8] (http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/basic/classic_programs/eliza.bas)) MFH 18:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Name

I understood that Linux was a recursive acronym (or something like that) for Linux is not Unix. Can anyone confirm whether or not this is the case, and whether it can be included in the article. Cheers, Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_{k (http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits.cgi?user=Smoddy&dbname=enwiki)</sub>)} 19:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, you are thinking of GNU which stands for Gnu's not unix. Linux is Linus + nix, from multix or some other OS he was working on back in the day. zen master T 19:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah right. Thanks, Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_{k (http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits.cgi?user=Smoddy&dbname=enwiki)</sub>)} 21:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linux belongs to Linus Torvalds. He wanted to call it “Freeix,” but the people who ran his university's FTP server talked him out of that. It sounded too much like “freaks.” Linux was to be a temporary name until someone came up with something better. That was in 1991.

Linux is trademarked by Linus, but he had to fight to get it from William R. Della Croce, Jr., who had trademarked the name in 1995 and was going to use it as a "get rich quick" scheme, but the result was Linus' proven ownership (trademark #1916230).

Intro change

I would like to change the first sentence from,

Linux is a computer operating system and its kernel.

To,

Linux is a computer kernel, though it is commonly used to refer to a family of operating systems.

I feel this is superior for the following reasons:

Linux is foremost a kernel, so this makes nit pickers (like myself) happy.
If people are told "Linux is an operating system" they might next think "Okay, where can I get the Linux operating system?" This new wording makes sure they realize that ~~there is not actually a "Linux operating system"~~ really want a distribution in the "Linux family".
Currently, the third paragraph has to contradict what the first sentence says. This new wording doesn't, and the third paragraph can be reduced to a footnote.

This may be contentious... I checked the Talk page for similar discussion, but this exact point doesn't seem to be addressed. Comments? —Sean κ. ⇔ 04:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Family of OSes is also misleading in this context, "a complete OS" is more accurate (when describing the distinction between linux the kernel and gnu/linux the OS).

The intro must be made more accessible to the lay reader, and this proposal is a step in the right direction. I rearranged the intro to make it slightly friendlier to the lay reader, and it has ben reverted. Please imagine that someone who barely knows what at OS is (ie the average windows user) has been directed to this article. Having a second paragraph about kernels and GNU will send them running away screaming. -- Tarquin 19:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right now the intro reads:

The term Linux strictly refers to the Linux kernel, but is commonly used to describe entire Unix-like operating systems (also known as GNU/Linux) that are based on the Linux kernel combined with libraries and tools from the GNU project. Linux distributions often bundle large quantities of software with the core system.

I feel this violates NPOV, since many people don't consider Linux to refer strictly to the Linux kernel, and instead to both the Linux kernel and the operating system run under it (including GNU userland) equally. This could be far worse, but I think it needs improved wording to take this into account—Trevor Caira 15:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Litigation history

There shouldn't be a litigation history any longer as there is a change of attitude SCO has now in her battling. The claims SCO has raised seemed to have been dropped. I deleted the litigation section as it wasn't really clear anyways. Since SCO couldn't win anything in the courts, the battle could be said have nothing really to do with Linux.

--User Jagginess

LOL, are you a shill for SCO? They are still trying to claim a Linux connection (if for no other reason than to keep the Redhat lawsuit stayed pending resolution of the SCO vs IBM lawsuit). zen master T 21:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Microsoft/DOJ lawsuit has died down, why not erase that from our collective memory too? We don't simply erase mention of notable events. Rhobite 21:28, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

There is a need to include information about the Linux mark: http://www.linuxmark.org/ and the history of how this mark was won after someone tried to steal it, and how and why this mark is managed. I feel this is important in connection with this page, as it illuminates other free software trademark discussions and controversies. Should this go under Litigation history, or does it justify a seperate subsection under Linux history ? [copsewood 18 Jun 2005]

Intro, again

I rearranged the intro to make it slightly friendlier to the lay reader, and it has ben reverted. Please imagine that someone who barely knows what at OS is (ie the average windows user) has been directed to this article. Having a second paragraph about kernels and GNU will send them running away screaming. You're not doing yourself any favours here. Please reconsider. -- Tarquin 19:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Market share

It says: Its market share for desktops is rapidly growing. According to market research company IDC, 25% of servers and 2.8% of desktop computers were already running Linux in 2002...

Any references??

192.38.79.233 09:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Linux and Virus

I'd personally like to have some facts about how computer viruses are effective against Linux. From what I've heard, Linux doesn't need Anti Virus software, since it's such a powerful and well written OS, that viruses doesn't affect it? Well anyway, a Linux vs Virus section would be nice in this article. EliasAlucard|Talk 22:35, 28 May, 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not Linux is well written has little bearing on its susceptibility to viruses. The fact that users typically run under less priveleged accounts, Linux's small installed base, and Linux typically being used as a server rather than a desktop, are what most affect its reputation as being immune to viruses.

However, Linux is far from secure. While it has only had a few viruses written for it, there have been a large number of exploits published, both local and remote.

Darrien 21:54, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

All right. I'm no expert on this, and that's also why I'd like a Linux vs Virus section. Partially, to learn more about it, and of course, I think it's important facts that people should know.

EliasAlucard|Talk 11:41, 29 May, 2005 (UTC)

It's a tough subject, given the fact that people on both sides are very passionate about it. However no matter what, there are two absolute truths about Linux and viruses:

Computers running Linux do not get viruses.

The number one reason for this is the small install base which could act as potential infected hosts.

As far as we know, a cell phone is just as susceptible to viruses as my Linux machine. No one writes cell phone viruses, but that doesn't mean that there might be some loophole no one has ever thought of.

Also, you have to look at users. Windows can easily be made more secure than a poorly configured Linux box. However, if you look at the average Windows user, it's unlikely they'll know what a firewall does, while the average Linux user probably edits their iptables by hand (or maybe not...). —Sean κ. + 17:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that the number one reason Linux does not get viruses is becase of a small installed base. Two counter examples are the Witty worm (http://www.caida.org/analysis/security/witty/) and the Apache web server (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html). There was a population of a mere 12,000 hosts vulnerable to the Witty worm, and yet the worm throve. OTOH, the Apache web server is primarily hosted on Unix/Linux and yet is far less vulnerable to attacks, and attacked far less, than Microsoft's IIS. This suggests that the virus writers go for 'the easy pickings', not necessarly for the largest installed base.

I don't think that what I said applies in general, only to the current install base of desktop Linux boxes. If I recall, Witty was targeted at the US Millitary (or whoever primarily used the faulty security software), and a number of important computers chosen as seeds. —Sean κ. + 21:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. There were _only_ 12,000 hosts out there, yet somebody had the motivation to attack those machines with a worm. In the last 6 month's alone there have been more than 1,000 (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/attack_trends_2.html) new viruses and worms written. Surely there are people motivated to attack the far more than 12,000 Linux hosts out there. Yet there are practically no viruses. There are many many Cisco routers and firewalls out there protecting many valuable assets, yet we hear of no viruses. There are many many Unix hosts out there with valuable information. We hear of no viruses. There are many OS X hosts out there. No viruses. I'm not saying these systems can't be cracked, I'm saying that it's easier to crack a Windows box. So much easier that it seems not worth writing viruses for anything else.

Desktop share is immaterial. People don't write viruses to attack desktops, they write viruses to attack computers. Some clearly write viruses to attack small numbers of computers, presumably because they protect something valuable. Malware writers targeting small numbers of computers have had success, wild success. There is a large amount of value, and a large number of computers, for which there is little malware. To conclude that their smaller installed base is what is protecting these computers seems questionable. What these computers have in common is that they don't run MS Windows. To me it seems a more reasonable conclusion would be that these computers are harder to attack than computers running Windows. Many of the computers that are not attacked are desktops, so desktop-ness does not seem to play into it. Maybe the new attacks are variants of old attacks, which are mostly attacks on Windows. That might explain why Windows is attacked most frequently, but not why MS can't fix Windows so attacks don't succeed. --kop 18:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further, there are quite a large number of Linux systems out there. It's been reported (http://www.pocketfactory.com/archives/2004/02/linux_overtakes_macintosh_market_share.php) that Linux has a larger share of the desktop computer market than Macs do.

"IDC will soon release 2003 software market data which is expected to show Linux pulling ahead of Apple..." how can you cite an opinion as being a fact? Find something more concrete to back up your claims or label them as opinions.

Surely that makes for enough computers that there's profit, or whatever, in attacking them. One would think that because the Linux code is availabe for anyone to read, and discover vulnerablities in, that this would make Linux a more inviting target than other systems but this appears not to be the case.

Why would anyone need to write a virus targeting Linux when there are so (http://secunia.com/search/?search=linux+root&w=0) many (http://search.securityfocus.com/swsearch?query=linux+root&sbm=advisories&submit=Search%21&metaname=alldoc&sort=swishrank) local and remote (http://secunia.com/search/?search=linux+root+remote&w=0) root (http://search.securityfocus.com/swsearch?query=linux+root+remote&sbm=advisories&submit=Search%21&metaname=alldoc&sort=swishrank) exploits (http://www.insecure.org/sploits_linux.html)?

Linux has (per previous link) a 3.2% share of the desktop,

Wrong, see above.

and around 15% (http://news.com.com/IDC+Linux+server+sales+to+hit+9.1+billion+in+2008/2100-1010_3-5479681.html?tag=nl) share of all servers.

The link you provided does not say that Linux has a 15% share of all servers. It said that 15% of *new* servers sold in 2003 were running Linux. That is nowhere near 15% of all servers as you claim.

Suppose there were _only_ 100 Windows viruses, that caused problems. There should be at least 3 troublesome Linux viruses. There are none.

--kop 18:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you take the time to read any articles that you intend to present as fact.

Darrien 20:57, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

First, I don't really trust the first link you gave, but I can assume that Linux has around 3% market share. If I were writing a virus for a desktop computer, would I bother writing it for Linux? I really doubt it. If I wanted to write 100? Still, probably not.

Also, the small install base is just the biggest reason there are no viruses. The fact that most Linux users are savvy also makes it difficult to write an effective virus. Why, what do you think is the most important reason there are no Linux viruses? —Sean κ. + 21:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

"Linux doesn't have or need antivirus software. Those programs are to filescan windows filesystems and in particular, email servers. When you build a boat without holes, you don't need duct tape to keep it afloat." [9] (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?postid=1616293#post1616293) I'm not saying that was pure fact, but I'd like to know what he's talking about?

EliasAlucard|Talk 20:25, 03 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Look, you can try and build the safest car in the world, but people will still die in it. If you build the safest airplane in the world, you're still going to put a blackbox in it. And I'll bet that boat without holes has lifevests. No operating system is "without holes", that's just ridiculous. It isn't a matter of preference, it's a matter of logic. Everything we create has flaws, ergo Linux has flaws.

That said, the statement, "Linux doesn't have or need antivirus software" is true in practice, but it isn't really relevant to the security of Linux. My cell phone also doesn't have antivirus software, but I assure you that if everyone started storing their credit card number in their cell phone, then that would change very quickly. —Sean κ. + 20:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You got a good point there. I can't argue about that. But it's stuff like this I think should be explained in the article, so people who hear biased stuff about Linux (both positive and negative) can get it straightened out here.

EliasAlucard|Talk 03:25, 04 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Public administarion

Hello. What do you think about a section ==Linux in public administration== where we deal with the local and 'federal' governements that have switched to Linux, given money for Linux develepoment, etc. ? es.wikipedia has already some information http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#El_software_libre_en_la_administraci.C3.B3n_p.C3.BAblica --Youssef 19:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I honestly can't see how it would benefit the article in any way. Would anyone care if a government switched from using ACME brand hammers to non-ACME brand hammers?

Darrien 05:42, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Confusing Introduction

I found the introduction too esoteric. I don't know that much about computers and I had to click on several of the links to understand. That's fine later on in the text, but it would be nice if someone could add a few words of explanation after some of the terms.

I agree. Linux zealots don't allow me to change it. -- Taku 05:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm about as far as it gets from a Linux zealot. My reason for reverting was because the new intro does nothing except add that Linux is "as developed as other modern operating systems", an instance of POV. I agree that the current intro is too complicated, it should definitely be simplified. Rhobite 06:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me if linux zealots mind you. It was somehow meant to be funny, as they are infamous :) Anyway, Is the new version POV? The new one also says you can see and change source code, which is obvious, but we have to say the obvious. -- Taku 06:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted the intro paragraph to the version last added by Stevenj, because the other version had serious spelling, grammatical, and POV issues. At least this version is fairly clear, and gives the (possibly unfamiliar) reader a good indication of what the article is about, with an economical use of words. —Ryanaxp 21:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

It was meant to be draft; so I was careless about spelling. If you want to see the new version is shortened, I can try. The current version is apparently arcane for those unfamiliar with terms like open source and free software. ALso, I don't know how the new version is POV. -- Taku 22:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

In the future, please remember that highly-visible articles such as this one are not drafts, they are on the web and they are read by thousands of people. Please take the time to spellcheck your contributions. I still don't see how your version is better or more understandable than the previous one. I rephrased the sentence about Linux's open source status, and I removed the "vindicated" sentence. It's awkward and it still expresses the opinion that Linux is "as functional and robust as ones developed by a big software vendor." That statement certainly isn't true in all cases. Rhobite 22:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

About editing style, I think it is more matter of personal preference. Some people really mind misspelling or grammatical errors at any moment, while some prefer to wait fixing until some final version emerges. Since now I know your preference, I can try to be more careful. But I am still going to make some mistake however I am careful, so you are certainly welcome to fix anything; it's just spelling or grammatical problems cannot be bases for the removal of new edits.

Anyhow, my intent is still to fix the shortcoming of the old version. As the above, saying Linux is open source or free software tells very little. And I thought and still think that saying how Linux is unique (that is how it differs from others) helps. As for the maturity, I agree that it sounds POV; I am still trying to express this in NPOV manner. Certainly, there is why some companies are trying to switch to Linux, and, I think, this is very important to note; something has to be mentioned in the intro. Anyway, based on the discussion, I will try how we can achive this. -- Taku 23:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

About my last edit. I think the first and second sentences in the intro are ok. The third one probably can use more edit; in it, I simply spelled out why Linux is important as an example of open source development. Free software isn't new; but Linux has also shown that having many eyebrows can help, contradicting the traditional view, and it is noteworthy in my opinion. We can either remove it or put it in more concise manner. Since I am going out now, I leave this manner to others. I will later try if I can or want. -- Taku 23:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Linux is not unique, it is not the only widely-used open source OS. Others include FreeBSD and OpenBSD. I took out the word "unique". I removed "others such as" because it's an awkward phrase. The phrase "It is unique in that" is also awkward, please rephrase it if you insist on replacing it. Rhobite 00:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Some comment about wording. I still cannot see why people stick to the phrase "it is among the most famous example of ..." While it is true, it is not concise, and it is awkward to introduce things as an example. Take, for example, "George W. Bush is among the most famous example of neoconservative US presidents." The intro should tell what is Linux and how it is significant. We have to say this how, not that Linux is significant or famous example or such, which tells essentially none. -- Taku 22:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think the intro has to include the following points, (all of which are too obvious to us):

Linux is an operating system.
It is modern; it supports OS concepts like threading, virtual machine and such.
it is free software.
Its development model differs from traditional one, commercial or not, in two ways: (1) single person has the ultimate responsibility (that is, Linus) and (2) The Cathedral and the Bazaar idea; having more programmers help.

So it is really the matter of wording. It is probably impossible to spell the above out, but we can try. -- Taku 23:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't sound too bad, but may I ask what's wrong with the current intro? I don't find anything wrong it.

EliasAlucard|Talk 01:20, 19 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I tried to spell out why we need to revise it in the above post (22:57, Jun 18, 2005). If my post didn't make sense for whatever reason, please just let me know -- Taku 02:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ken Thompson interview quote

I think that quote is quite interesting and fits into the article. It does not, however, belong into the intro. I suggest a separate section "Opinions on the Linux kernel". Add some choice quotes by Tanenbaum and de Raadt and we have a complete (though not perfectly balanced) new section. Rl 13:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To the anon who is contributing the quote: I would be inclined to agree with your views, but the way you are approaching this is not appropriate in Wikipedia. Rl has a point that your edits do not belong in the intro, and you have not commented on this. Until you do, it is unlikely your changes will be kept. Further, being rude is not a good way to make contributions. —Sean κ. + 16:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User has been notified on his talk page to be civil when making an edit. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:14, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

User has been given his final warning on his talk page. We don't have time for trolling, and I have made that clear. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

He's not even using the -right- insulting terms, dammit! its penguin-shagger :pp

I can't see a reason for he's doing to the intro. The Thompson interview quote, however, is more suited to the article. --Kiand 16:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well thanks to his reckless actions no one will ever get to hear what he has to say. —Sean κ. + 17:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too bad, too. I think he actually may have had a valid viewpoint, but he violated policy. Oh well. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:31, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the anon's comments about Ken Thompson: while Thompson is a famous computer scientist and probably very brilliant, I believe he did not have much of a hand in turning the original UNIX into the thing it became in the 1980's. Unless there's more evidence that Thompson has some level of expertise in kernel design, I doubt he's a superior source of 'authority' than, say, Theo de Raadt. Plus, most of the criticisms of the Linux kernel architecture can be said of the micro vs monolithic kernel debate, which is a story for another day - rernst 17:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You must be kidding. Thompson is more than qualified to weigh in on kernel design. Of course, a) he made his comment half a decade ago and b) the fact that some of the Linux kernel code is and/or looks pretty awful is not a secret. But a quote by the Ken Thompson is certainly noteworthy. I'd be in favor of putting the quote into Linux kernel. It is about the kernel rather than a complete OS anyway. Oh, and as I said before, I am all for adding quotes from de Raadt, Tanenbaum and other qualified folks as well. Rl 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's an issue. The problem we were having was the way that he (the troll) was repeatedly inserting material and ignoring requests to use the talk page. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I noticed that. But we can still use the material, no? Rl 18:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! I'm just not sure whereabouts to put it, but it could certainly be used. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:30, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I would consider including it if he had said something similar recently —Sean κ. + 21:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The quote is interesting because it is fairly old. As a comment on Linux kernel stability I don't think it's worth much. It is more about the perception of Linux at the time. In other words: If people like Thompson would not say something like that again that would make the early quote more noteworthy. Rl 07:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Washing Powder

We have a linux fan who keeps removing the link to the Washing Powder. Stop it, its immature and smacks of blatant blind devotion to a cause that makes you unable to accept that something else might have the same name and just as much right to a dab header. --Kiand 12:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Linux"

Categories: Wikipedia featured article candidates (contested)