Talk:Linux/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 → Archive 53

Linux (not Android, possibly Tizen) most popular on tablets – in Gabon..

I noticed some strange statistics in the African nation of Gabon.. As expected iOS is going down there, Andoid got majority just for one month and then Linux.. Would you expect this just to be something like Cyanogenmod? I would expect them to register as Android. Maybe there is just some noise/fluctuation in the data or few users. Could this be Firefox OS (still thought they only had smartphones and a TV..), or some experimental platform? Beating Android wasn't expected.. comp.arch (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Hm, could it be WebOS, for example? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Could be, but the last version was in 2012 and last hardware (tablet):? "On August 18, 2011, 49 days after the TouchPad was launched in the United States, HP announced that it would discontinue all current devices running webOS". I guess it's possible all the old tablets end up in Gabon.. :) comp.arch (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
That could be a possibility. :) However, it's quite interesting because it looks almost like some kind of a glitch in the statistics. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
With Samsung taking a big jump to 67%, judged by device vendors for tablets, in Gabon, I think we can rule out webOS. Either this is Android, not showing up as such (by people rooting, en masse?) or a more likely possibility Tizen? Airtel Gabon ‏@Airtel_GA: https://twitter.com/airtel_ga/status/555373787772768257 "Ça y est, le système Tizen est maintenant disponible sur le Samsung Z1". Translation: "That's it, the Tizen system is now available on the Samsung Z1". I didn't look to much into Tizen tablets, either one got really popular there or a Tizen smartphone is misclassified as a tablet? Either way, would be news for Tizen (in Gabon..). http://www.developer-tech.com/news/2015/jan/15/opinion-samsungs-tizen-should-be-called-trojan/ comp.arch (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Could be Tizen very easily. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I am thinking maybe OLPC identifies itself as x11 Linux tablet ? The other options are Cube i7 with Ubuntu, from China, or Tizen TV from Samsung.[1] The fluctuations[2][3] tell me not many people are using tablets in African countries, just like this 100% Desktop Linux spike in Antartica[4]. --Ne0 (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I expect GNU/Linux to move up the online-usage ladder with the release of new Linux devices, like Steam machines & C.H.I.P[5] --Ne0 (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This other country in Africa might also be a fluke.. (in fact, if not only counting "mobile", but all platforms, Linux is still most popular there (the only country in the world where that is so[6]) but if only desktop is counted, it is no longer so while then some other African country has Linux majority.. the whole world seems to have Win7 majority, except the hard to find exceptions here, here and here). Linux there is possibly some Android-derivative(?) and/or possibly statistics in some of these [African] countries not reliable? Android and others seemed however stable until the huge fall.. In Gabon however Linux fell again and iOS recovered (but not again to number one)[7] comp.arch (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

What is Linux?

The first paragraph is IMO inaccurate and possibly misleading.

First, the sentence "Linux [...] is an operating system" is technically inaccurate: it is an operating system kernel. This distinction is important in practice. Conflating the two makes it hard to think about questions such as "What is Android?" or "What's the connection between Android and Linux?".

What about something along the lines of: "Linux is an operating system kernel used in a variety of operating systems such as Android."?

Second, the sentence "The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux" is of course correct. The FSF consists of around a dozen of employees; those people probably use that term. However, usage of the term is not limited to this small group of people, but this sentence fails to reflect it.

What about something along these lines instead: "The Free Software Foundation, the GNU Project, and other free software activists refer to operating systems using the kernel Linux along with GNU user-land software as 'GNU/Linux', which has led to some controversy. This article uses the term 'Linux' to refer both to such operating systems and to the kernel itself."?

This would preserve the article's position on that controversy, while stating that position explicitly.

GnuCivodul (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Ludovic Courtès

By longstanding consensus operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux" on Wikipedia, as per WP:COMMONNAME and also MOS:LINUX. "GNU/Linux" is considered a minority POV term used by the FSF and its supporters. There is a lot of background on this issue in the archives of this talk page, that you will really want to read first, as well as in Talk:Linux/Name as that is where past consensuses have been formed. You will also want to read GNU/Linux naming controversy and its talk page as background as well. - Ahunt (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The kernel is not the same as the OS itself, it is clearly distinguished between Linux kernel and Linux. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
When it comes to facts, popular belief does not necessarily reflect truth. The fact remains that the operating system as a whole is basically GNU, and Linux is one of its components. To give Linux equal mention in the term GNU/Linux is already a compromise. Consensus can gradually change to reflect the facts, but not when important information sources like Wikipedia have moderators rigidly enforcing misinformation. Tlebeau (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep that is the FSF position on this issue and your user page shows your POV . It just isn't well supported by anyone else. See GNU/Linux naming controversy. - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Replacement ref was "404", so I replaced that with an older version that works instead. - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

GNU Userspace

I have thoroughly sourced that GNU is the common userland of OS's running linux kernel. Just because ubuntu also is shipped with two DE's, mate and gnome, and has mozilla software and other baubles doesn't negate this key fact. Hell, a staff writer on the linux.org cite said GNU is the userspace of Linux. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can get Linux kernel with the BSD userspace... but the BSD page rightly lists BSD with the BSD kernel and not linux kernel. Linux kernel and the GNU userspace go hand and hand. Like the linux staff member said, virtually all distros use GNU core utils. Except maybe android, which contains barely any GNU, but android is an exception. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, you deleted quite a bit of well-sourced information. Ubuntu is not representative of all distros, so it's much better to use a more universal source. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
If you strip the distro of its desktop environment, a la Arch, it will have GNU's bash. Same with stripping it of its apps, it will still most likely have the core GNU packages.--Monochrome_Monitor 16:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC) @Dsimic: Also, the source could be considered original research, since its one guy who made a program to determine the distribution of software in one release of ubuntu. --Monochrome_Monitor 17:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Well, I'm wondering why should only I care about this particular issue? If nobody else cares, I won't go into edit warring with you. This is just Wikipedia, and very few people take it seriously anyway. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, please don't be defeatist. I didn't mean to upset you. I'll revert it if you like, I just wanted to know your reasoning. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, it all depends on one's viewpoint. For example, having Linux with no GNU userland is perfectly doable: put the Linux kernel and busybox (GPL-licensed, but not a GNU project) together and there you go, which is the exact scenario present in numerous embedded systems. Moreover, it comes to what's to be considered Linux; for example, Android is Linux, but not a Linux distribution, and it has virtually no GNU userland. If we go into politics, GNU surely did a monumental job for the whole free- and open-source movement, but GNU also tries to take a much larger credit than deserved. Let's also go through the references you used:
Surely, the source I used (http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux/) is also self-published, but it has been referenced by LWN.net, which a reputable third party (please see https://lwn.net/Articles/445454/). With all that in mind, I still find that having GNU components listed as the primary part of userland is somewhat misleading. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not just a forum post, it's a forum post by a staff writer at linux.org. That's definitely a reliable source. You cannot disqualify the second source by it saying "GNU/Linux", it also says "Linux". The other sources you say have nothing to do with it are citing other things, ie, X windows, and various desktop environments, in the context of the userland. I don't think it's misleading because though many components of the userland vary, GNU is pretty consistently used across the board. Android is not a linux distribution... it uses the modified linux kernel, but its its own OS. I mean, have you ever seen a proper linux distribution without bash? You could say FreeBSD but that's disingenuous. The BSD kernel can work the GNU userland hypothetically, but this almost never happens in practice. It's also disengenuous to describe GNU as "optional", like, say, a desktop environment. GNU is not analogous to mozilla firefox. It is analogous to BSD though. (the BSD userland). I'm fine putting GNU, BSD, and various other on there. You're right that GNU isn't inherent in linux OS, just as linux isn't inherent in GNU OS (ie GNU/Hurd). But they are often found together. So, yeah. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I mean, look at the pages with distros... all the ones I've seen have GNU listed as their userland. Yes, they may also have mozilla or gnome or whatever, but it doesn't quibble in semantics. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, a forum post is what it is, a forum post no matter who posted it. Yes, I've seen an embedded Linux distribution without bash, OpenWRT, which is also widely used on a variety of hardware platforms. However, how about going with a compromising "various components, including GNU" for the infobox entry, together with a shorter footnote? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Um, openwrt has GNU in it too, bash was just an example. And no, a forum post is not a forum post no matter who posted it... This is a post by a staff writer and admin at linux.org. It's silly that being in a forum makes it non RS, whereas if it were an article with comments it would be RS. He's a reliable source, regardless of the medium he uses. --Monochrome_Monitor 05:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, our guidelines might seem silly sometimes, but they aren't to be applied selectively. However, we'll have to agree that we disagree. Hopefully other editors will weigh in. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:SPS does allow self-published sources, such as forum posts: " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - Ahunt (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's his website. He seems pretty reliable, I'll look if he's been in publications (well, excluding Linux.org publications since that's where the cite is). --Monochrome_Monitor 04:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Crap, Here's the link. [8] --Monochrome_Monitor 04:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

naming on linux

should the words that are Linux be replaced with GNU/Linux in the Linux article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnymoon96 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No, there has been extensive discussion on this subject. See /Name and Talk:Linux/Archive 41 § Page move: GNU/Linux for examples of discussions of "Linux" versus "GNU/Linux". - Aoidh (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we should. That was then, this is now. The distinction between GNU the operating system and Linux the kernel is becoming more widely understood. Whatever risk there might once have been of "confusing" readers by using accurate terminology has evaporated. As Benjamin Mako Hill pointed out, 'the term Linux for the operating systems is, in one very important sense, very confusing in that it confuses the kernel and OS. Calling [it] "GNU/Linux" ... would go a long way to clearing this up. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. Our job is to inform and choose the most accurate names -- not regurgitate confusing and accurate public misconceptions.' zazpot (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
In a few words, the MOS:LINUX guideline still applies. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
And WP:COMMONNAME still applies as well. GNU/Linux remains an obscure term promoted by only one group of people and is not the name commonly used in the mainstream or tech press. - Ahunt (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is unnecessary to name the operating system as anything but Linux. BUT the term "GNU/Linux distribution" is required when referring to a package that includes for instance the Office Libre system, Firefox, and the gcc compiler package. There is, I believe, a distinct philosophical difference between Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman, although I greatly admire both. DaveyHume (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You can note that, as per MOS:LINUX, we don't use the term "GNU/Linux" on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't we at least bold the mention of the alternative name GNU/Linux in the lead, instead of italicizing it? I completely agree that Linux is preferable to GNU/Linux, as it's more recognizable, but my understanding is that synonyms should be in bold typeface the first time they are mentioned in an article on Wikipedia. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 06:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

dd-wrt

dd-wrt isn't mentioned in this linux article--odd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.251.249 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

There is already an article about DD-WRT, and there is no reason why it should be mentioned here. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Kernel or OS?

Linux is NOT a OS, it's a Kernel. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3403938/whats-the-relationship-between-a-linux-os-and-a-kernel Fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y.P.Y (talk • contribs) 11:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not the case on Wikipedia. You should read the rest of this talk page including all the archives, to get the history, as well as Talk:Linux/Name. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree. But most people refer to any operating system built on the linux kernel as "linux". Rather than GNU/Linux or FreeBSD/Linux. (the latter is a possible but very rare configuration. GNU/FreeBSD is much more common and sense-makeish.) It's a misnomer in my opinion but wikipedia has this policy of using the name most people use. I find more technical sources use GNU/Linux a lot more frequently. Like ibm. And Linux.org uses it a lot too, which may seem funny. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia of the people.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
When people say that they're going to "get some chips", they might also buy a fish, pie or sauce. It doesn't mean the whole meal is called "chips", just because people refer to it that way in the short hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.58.113 (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The ones that don't use GNU are things like Android, which I personally don't even consider to be linux. It's silly. Like calling Macintosh "FreeBSD". You know because Darwin is mostly FreeBSD. People want to treat linux as a brand like they do apple or windows, like an iphone or windows phone, even if both have a completely different kernel and userland. But it's not a brand. Well, it's a registered trademark and a company of sorts, but the company doesn't have any control over the stuff its kernel is put into. As for server and desktop linux, that can be considered an operating system, but it's not an operating system unless you include the gnu userland. Anyway, still. Most people have never even heard of GNU, so it makes sense to call this page Linux. No matter how inaccurate. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally though I think stuff about supercomputers and android and whatnot should go on linux kernel in the part about its applications. This article should be about linux servers and desktops. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an historical encyclopedic bug. Does not matter if Linux developers officially release Linux at kernel.org «The Linux Kernel Archives» written in font-size 48px. Does not matter if Linux is not a collection of programs, and if Wikipedia is not a democracy. It matters that people, companies and medias talk about "the Linux operating system". --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
And for the records, there is a lot of space between "Linux is a operating system" and "GNU/Linux is an operating system". E.g. Wikipedia users want to avoid GNU/? No problem, but why they don't consider "Linux is a kernel for unix-like operating systems"? That is the real question. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Beside the "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux" thing (summed up in the MOS:LINUX guideline), our longstanding consensus is that "Linux" is the operating system, while "Linux kernel" is the operating system kernel. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Some wikipedias have separated articles for Linux kernel, Linux system and GNU/Linux system, such as Portuguese pt:Linux (núcleo), pt:Linux, pt:GNU/Linux; Japanese jp:Linuxカーネル, jp:Linux, jp:GNU/Linuxシステム, and Hebrew he:לינוקס_(ליבה), he:לינוקס,he:גנו/לינוקס.--Luizdl Talk 05:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Please remember that Linux is *not* an operating system, at least it's used to refer to a family of operating systems with that kernel. It's different. Talk:Linux kernel#Linux is a kernel and a so called operating system family but it's NOT an operating system --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
To avoid having the same discussion in multiple locations, I've responded to your comment here. - Aoidh (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linux/Archive_49&oldid=1027132140"