Talk:Linux/Archive 40

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

→

Fix inconsistencies regarding the name

This page's name represents the single most widespread inconsistency on Wikipedia. The name 'Linux' is used interchangeably to mean the OS that's mostly comprised out of the Linux kernel and the GNU coreutilities, and just the kernel, which is very confusing to readers. Some "Android is a Linux-based operating system" from the Android article, and even worse, "Yun OS is a Linux distribution" form the Yun article. Android is not based on the system described in this article. After all, this is an article about a system "whose defining component is the Linux kernel," as can be read in the opening paragraph, and Android is not based on such a system, but directly on this 'defining component,' the kernel itself. Yet the Android article links to this page when talking about what Android is based on. This is simply fooling the readers, as someone buying an Android phone will have a system that is nothing like the operating system they're used to from their desktop or laptop, that they've read about on this article. It is only the same under the hood.

As for Yun OS being a Linux distribution, well, yes, technically it is, and the article about Linux distributions neatly explains that it can mean any system based on the Linux kernel. But what's the main reason to call this article Linux rather than GNU/Linux? It's the fact that that's the most common use of the word. Following this exact reasoning, the article about Linux distributions should only be about operating systems based on GNU/Linux, not just anything based on the Linux kernel, since this isn't common use of the word at all. I've never heard anyone call Android a 'Linux distribution.' Just like how Linux mostly refers to systems a system built upon the Linux kernel and the GNU coreutilities, a Linux distribution should refer to operating systems based on that system, like Debian and OpenSUSE. It makes no sense to have the Linux in 'Linux distributions' refer to something different than what the Linux article is about.

This ambiguity leads to users of the encyclopedia to read two conflicting stories. On the one hand, they are taught that Linux is to refer to a fully useable - for desktop use among other things - system that contains a kernel alongside other pieces of software, rather than the Linux kernel itself, and on the other hand, the word is bluntly used to mean just the kernel all throughout the encyclopedia.

Since this page cannot be renamed to GNU/Linux due to WP:COMMONNAME, I propose that all references to the Linux kernel to clearly state that it talks about the kernel ("Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel," "Yun OS is a distribution of the Linux kernel," etc.) I could have just changed it at those particular pages, but this is something big that will require hundreds of edits on all kinds of pages, so I figured that it'd best be discussed first, and this seemed like the right place (even though it isn't demanding for changes made to this particular article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.60.132 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It is valid and common to refer to the Linux kernel as "Linux". It would place too much restrictions on editors and be too burdensome to force them to call it the "Linux kernel" everywhere. Since this article calls all operating systems based on the Linux kernel Linux, and there's no consensus that GNU/Linux is a thing, there is a very fine difference between Linux-the-kernel and Linux-the-OS, expressions like "Linux-based" are equally valid whichever meaning you take. Count Truthstein (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Please read Talk:Linux#Article_structure_over_multiple_articles, it is the section above this section your started... there is no one Linux operating system, there a whole family of Linux operating systems, all using the Linux kernel as kernel. Though variants of the Linux kernel do exist. The entire "debate" over the GNU/Linux stuff was fruitless and highly counterproductive. But then again, Wikipedia was made (by the violent extra-terrestrials from the planet blabla) all about being counterproductive, wasn't it? ScotXW (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why are you immediately calling any discussion counterproductive? It's not that everyone should be jumping straight into anybody else's proposals — that's why it's called discussion in the first place. -- Dsimic (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there's no such thing as the Linux operating system. But that's not what the editors who seem have managed to control this article think. At present this article covers a separate Linux-the-OS, which includes all OS's based on Linux-the-kernel, including Android and GNU/Linux. Given that, calling Android a "Linux-based operating system" isn't misleading (saying that Android is based on GNU/Linux), just illogical (it expands to "Linux kernel-based operating system-based operating system"), but the reader can probably easily figure out what was meant. Count Truthstein (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Please allow me to quote myself, from above on this talk page: Let's not forget that it's the people reading articles on Wikipedia, not dumb robots. I'd say any reasonable human is perfectly capable of distinguishing when "Linux" means just the kernel, or the complete distribution. For those unable to catch the implicit differences, I'd say that additional explanations wouldn't help a lot... Why would "GNU/Linux" be more descriptive to someone not knowing already what "Linux" should be? :) -- Dsimic (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Because it includes an additional, accurate descriptive element, perhaps? What you're asking is equivalent to asking "what's more descriptive about 'a slice of bread with peanut butter' than 'a slice of bread'. You can put lots of stuff on the bread. The fact that we know what bread is, doesn't really help. 82.168.60.132 (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree that providing more and accurate details is almost always better. But if we just keep adding, we can end up with something like "a square 4x4-inch 8 mm thick slice of 100% whole-wheat bread, covered on one side only with 3 mm thick layer of XYZ peanut butter, spread out in a straightened semi-zigzag pattern" — and we'd still be far away from a complete definition of something as simple as a slice of bread. :) On the other hand, if you already know the concepts of "bread" and "butter", the definition can be much more simple, while being implicitly complete enough.

Please don't get me wrong, I love to provide and to read a lot of details, but those are probably hardly going to help anyone who isn't already grasping the required basic concepts. If somebody doesn't already know what the bread is, it's hard to bring more complex concepts closer to him/her without the prior basic understanding of the bread etc.

Thoughts? -- Dsimic (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you not agree that the various operating systems based on the Linux kernel, like Debian and Android, can be so different from one another, that there is no relevance in reflecting their similarity in the name? The end user doesn't really notice that what he's doing on his device is powered by the Linux kernel. Torvalds himself says that a good kernel is one that the user doesn't notice. I think it'd be useful to specify it as GNU/Linux in order to distinguish it from systems like Android. Usually, no further specification than that is needed, because things that are relevant for one distribution are often relevant to other distributions as well. That's why they're so often grouped together. That's why Comparison of Linux distributions compares GNU/Linux distributions, and nothing broader (like something that encompasses Android), nor anything more specific (like which shell is used in the system).

But we're getting off-topic here. The article won't be renamed to GNU/Linux regardless, and how logical the name sounds is irrelevant here, as this section is about the inconsistencies that arise all throughout the encyclopedia from naming this article Linux. It's confusing when Linux can either mean the desktop operating system or the kernel, and it's disturbing when the links get mixed up. 82.168.60.132 (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I do agree with that, totally — Android and "regular" Linux distros are two completely different animals. But please, let's keep in mind that regular users don't care at all about anything. They don't care whether it's the Linux kernel inside, QNX, Windows, Symbian, or whatever — as long as they can print a document, login into Facebook, or do whatever makes them happy.

It could've been only a small bicycle wheel :) inside their computers, and they wouldn't even notice or care either, as long as it keeps them happy. Saying that something is "based on the Linux kernel" wouldn't make them even blink... "Can I open my Excel spreadsheet on that, and use my Outlook calendar? Geez, I can't do Outlook??" :)

-- Dsimic (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is even trying to persuade anyone to change their operating system here, and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. What the average human being cares about, and what they don't, is completely irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia, whose purpose is to provide objective information, and inconsistencies like these are unacceptable. Do you realize that, as it currently is, Wikipedia is spreading misinformation by saying that Android is based on an operating system which the FSF prefers to call GNU/Linux? This is bad regardless the situation, but the popularity of Android only adds to the significance.

And if, as you claim, "regular users don't care at all about anything," they certainly won't care about some inconsistencies being resolved. Even if the argument was relevant, it still wouldn't have been one against me, just a neutral comment. You seem to be using this page as a general place to share your thoughts about the matter. Please not that, as the header says, this is NOT forum for general discussion. If you don't have anything productive to add to the debate, would you mind refraining from sharing it here? 82.168.60.132 (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, I went off-topic with my comments. Sorry, I'll stop doing that. Now, back to the topic.

Regarding using "GNU/Linux" all around, I don't find that to be such a great thing. What should we do with software that isn't GNU, and it comes as bundled in almost every Linux distribution? How is that going to be classified and named? If we say that something is "GNU/Linux", that means inside is only either the Linux kernel, or the GNU software. X.org has no place there, for example.

Regarding Android, I'd say it should be called "an operating system based on the Linux kernel." In other words, "Linux" should mean "a distribution made of free/open-source/GNU/whatever software and the Linux kernel," while "Linux kernel" should refer to "just the Linux kernel itself." That should be totally clear to anyone, instead of prefixing "Linux" with anything else for the distributions, and keeping plain "Linux" for the bare kernel itself.

About how to specify who you're replying to, you might want to try using @username headings, that might help. Also, please consider opening yourself an account here on Wikipedia.

-- Dsimic (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Went ahead and edited the Android article, so it reflects the above described reasoning. We'll see what are going to be the reactions to that edit. -- Dsimic (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you go to kernel.org, it says "The Linux Kernel Archives", and not "The Linux Archives". That supports my reasoning from the above, regarding the naming scheme. -- Dsimic (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: does anyone know of a way to show more clearly who I am responding to? The comment below is NOT a reply to the comment directly above it, but rather, to the post made by Count Truthstein (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC). 82.168.60.132 (talk)

Actually, my whole problem with it is that the Linux article does not in fact talk about 'a separate Linux-the-OS, which includes all OS's based on Linux-the-kernel, including Android and GNU/Linux.' Well, a little, but that's part of the inconsistency. It talks mostly about a system that relies heavily on GNU coreutils. Why does the opening paragraph say that the FSF considers Linux a variant of the GNU operating system? The FSF only sees desktop operating systems like Debian as variants of the GNU OS, but not any universal 'Linux-the-OS' that may include Android. Why does the User Interface section talk about something that does not at all apply to Android? The whole development section has nothing to do with Android either. The context in which the Android article refers to this article is very misleading.

Also, if Android is really simply a "Linux-based operating system" even in the sense that this article uses 'Linux,' how come Comparison of Linux distributions doesn't mention Android even once? One would think that such an article would at least include the main 'toplevel' distributions, rather than comparing just the distributions inside one branch of that tree (namely systems that rely on the GNU coreutils). But this is simply not what people generally mean when they talk about 'Linux'. They mean the system that was initiated in 1983, and that simply became ready for use thanks to Linus Torvalds. That's the whole reason WP:Commonname is even relevant in the naming of this article. Calling that system Linux is fine, but it should apply site-wide. Android is not based on 'Linux.'

Introductory paragraphs unreadable by newcomers.

Presumably the purpose of this article is to explain to newcomers what Linux is. Experts have little use for it. Yet the virtually unreadable "firehose" of facts in the first paragraph does little to enlighten the newcomer and more likely turns them away. Even as an 20-year user I had to read several times just to decipher it all.

In this spirit I made edits that made the full introduction a lot more readable, moving some of the readable intro paragraphs up, removed many (not just redundant but) duplicate sentences, and generally spaced out the facts to give one a chance for them all to sink in.

The edit was promptly undone:

(cur | prev) 04:33, 23 October 2013‎ The Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs)‎ . . (76,013 bytes) (+68)‎ . . (Undid revision 578345062 by 99.146.36.53 (talk) previous version was more consolidated and consistent with guidelines) (undo) [automatically accepted]

Adding 68 redundant lines (edit:actually bytes) is not really "more consolidated."

Just as an example, approximately 0% of newcomers know or care about the naming controversy, and will likely *never* care. It doesn't belong in the first paragraph, perhaps in section "X.X". The compromise of moving it to a later intro paragraph is not bad. The intro is probably too long, but whatever.

In short, the article as-is not helpful to my journalist friend or wife I had hoped to send a link to answer their questions.

A few better examples, though not perfect of course:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.36.53 (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Just as a side note, above mentioned "+68" means the size of addition in bytes, not in lines. -- Dsimic (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I second the wish for an edit. The intro is too long with too much useless stuff. I'd love to edit it, but it will be reverted. (Stallmann-fanboys are maybe 5% of the Linux Community and thus only ~0.0001% of humanity, but boy do they cry and flame, if the mentioning of their beloved one gets removed)

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hm, what are your main objections against the current lead section? How do you actually envision it – could you elaborate a bit, please? I'm not a fan boy of anything, but the lead section looks good to me as-is... A complex thing such as Linux can hardly be described with simple words, if the intention is to keep the actual usability and value of such a simplified description. — Dsimic (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision

This page should cater to the vast majority of users who are reading the page, which we all know are mostly clueless people who hear or see "linux" in the news, and want to know about it. The article needs to be a general overview of the broad popular concept of "Linux", as an evolution of open software, mainly started by the GNU Project, popularized by Linus Torvalds "Linux" os idea which itself he abandoned while focusing on his prolific kernel, and the completion of the idea by various distros, including the again prolific Debian GNU/Linux project, its offshoots most notably Ubuntu and Linux Mint. Other "Linux" software is worth noting, especially including Google Android, which of course is wildly popular. And server/supercomputer software, the GNU OS, and possibly others of the crazy dysfunctional at times open software family that the broad "linux" concept represents. Some content should be drawn in from Linux distribution, as is relevant. Right now the leading section of this page is a disorganized, unfocused, unclear mess, and that's why it was removed from the good articles list a long time ago.

This needs to be a good article. This page is insanely popular and important, everyone needs to bury the hatchets and axes and whatnot, let bygones be bygones, and start working together in a serious manner to build it up. Let's get it together so millions of people can be more informed and better educated about Linux, GNU, GNU/Linux, and free software in general. Can everyone agree on this? --Nicholas Davidowicz (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As I already wrote above, the lead section is fine with me, as is rest of the article. And, to repeat myself, a complex thing such as Linux can hardly be described with simple words, if the intention is to keep the actual usability and value of such a simplified description. — Dsimic (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Dsimic. I also don't understand what you're asking, except that it sounds a lot like you want the impossible, the whole article somehow condensed, yet still covered in the same depth, in the first few introductory sentences. I think the intro is actually pretty good at picking out the most important facts. It also reflects a long history of discussion to find a WP:CONSENSUS we could all live with, going through that lede paragraph word-by-word. Msnicki (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)