Talk:Linux/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Linux as an operating system and as a kernel

I think it would be helpful to make less confusing the reason why Android is not a Linux operating system and how GNU/Linux is a relevant alternative name for Linux as an operating system, omitting the "controversy" part (does not belong in the lead paragraph). I propose to change the following

The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to describe the operating system, which has led to some controversy; while they explicitly have no controversy over the name Android (they object to it on proprietary grounds however), as GNU is not a part of it.

into

Linux distributions making extensive use of the GNU system are sometimes called a GNU/Linux operating system, a practice that is advocated by the Free Software Foundation. Although not a Linux operating system, Android is based on the Linux kernel.

The important part here is to mention the reason for calling a Linux operating system "GNU/Linux" is not only that FSF likes it, it is also the extensive use of the GNU system. The way the GNU/Linux - Android situation is presented is mostly political, while it can and should be mostly factual. Nxavar (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposed change, it makes the FSF point of view look like it is not the minority POV that it is. - Ahunt (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Who says that Android is not a Linux operating system ? If an operating system uses a Linux kernel it is indeed a Linux operating system. It is not the Linux Operating System, if such exists, but certainly one of them. While Google may not like the statement that Android is a Linux operating system for marketing reasons, they have no say over the matter of perception and description by independent and neutral parties. In any case, the grammar and construction of the existing statement is horrible, it should be changed. The phrase "they explicitly have no controversy over the name..." is just unacceptable, a controversy is not something someone has, but a conflict between multiple parties over some subject matter. Kbrose (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Android issue, I think that the stance of Wikipedia on characterizing an OS as a Linux OS, is to follow what the vast majority call/characterize an OS, both in the business and consumer side. Since Android is widely not called a Linux operating system, I do not see how it is consistent to call it one. Let's not forget that Linux is technically just a kernel, and of the microkernel flavor. If people do not consider its place in Android to not be so prominent, Why should Wikipedia promote this view? Nxavar (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not a matter of promotion. If a chair is painted blue, it is a blue chair. If a city has a Greek community, they call it Greek town. The statement that an operating system is Linux-based, is equivalent to saying that it is a Linux operating system. Even the Linux foundation describes Android as a LInux distribution. If it is Linux distribution, why would it not be also a Linux operating system? On WP, Android is also categorized as a category:Embedded Linux distributions. Kbrose (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

See, Android is a Linux-based operating system. What it isn't is a GNU/Linux based operating system. So what we need to decide is whether "The Linux OS" refers to GNU/Linux based OSs (this is what it usually refers to) or any Linux based OS (now including Android, Chrome OS, etc.)

This is why I personally prefer the term GNU/Linux; it makes one's meaning clearer. Eman235/talk 00:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on a second. Linux is not a microkernel. Konimex (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Uptime?

If Linux is more reliable as competing operating systems, some uptime FUN FACTS will be nice ( not serious, of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.160.175.66 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC) gentoo (fileserver, 2.6.17 x86_64 kernel) : 1739 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.215.2 (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Wayland

The main article discusses Wayland in passing, saying "the Linux community" seeks to 'advance' to it. Well, from my perspective, there is a big push from WITHIN "the Linux community" for Wayland, but there is also a 'big push' from those who do NOT want to "move to Wayland", as it loses a lot of the capabilities that X servers have always had (such as remote program execution).

Quote from the article: "More recently, the Linux community seeks to advance to Wayland as the new display server protocol in place of X11"

There has been a LOT of resistance to Systemd, by those who don't believe that this kind of change has any benefits (and might, in fact, have a lot of serious drawbacks).

There has ALSO been a lot of resistance to the changes in Gnome 3, spawning the Mate desktop (a fork of Gnome 2).

In general, this "resistance to change" is large and vocal, with very good reasons justifying why NOT to change. Perhaps there should at least be a discussion of the controversy surrounding these kinds of major architectural shifts, and the fact that MANY in the "Linux community' resist such changes, because there's no perception of a clear need, or a clear benefit, to making them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:D:C9C:0:0:0:2 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

GNU/Linux is the name of the operating system. Linux is the name of the kernel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Linux is used by multiple families of operating systems, among which the two most important are GNU/Linux and Android. GNU/Linux is developed by different organizations and individuals around the world. Private and public, for profit and non-profit organizations. GNU provides user space POSIX compliance along with extensions of its own. Hence, the name GNU/Linux describes the whole operating system as stated by the Free Software Foundation and complies with the broad concept of operating system. This has led to some controversy, confusion and redundant writing like the Linux kernel instead of only Linux and calling the whole operating system Linux instead of GNU/Linux. Android is a mobile and IoT oriented operating system developed by Google and the Open Handset Alliance.

People usually refers to GNU/Linux when they talk about Linux. And they refer to Android as Android, not Linux. Operating Systems incompatible with GNU/Linux include Android itself, old Alpine Linux distribution versions using µLibc instead of Musl as newer versions and any other operating system using Linux with a user space incompatible with GNU. Any GNU/Linux compatible operating system is in fact GNU/Linux, as it is using GNU contracts in their software starting with the Glibc and Glibc-compatible libraries. Then you also have command line tools, daemons (d-bus, now a freedesktop standard too) and even GUI programs and environments such as GNOME and GIMP.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Filiprino (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Filiprino: This is a perennial proposal: see Talk:Linux/Archive 41#Page move: GNU/Linux.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It does not contradict the fact that this page has the wrong title and contents. Although it is not a justification, many other Wikipedias use GNU/Linux instead of Linux to describe the operating system. Filiprino (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC) I would like to add that nobody can count which is the most used term because nobody has segregated search results by meaning. Meanwhile, there are scientific articles (ACM, IEEE) using GNU/Linux when they talk about the whole system and scientific articles using Linux because they only do research in the kernel. Go figure what are the reliable sources. Filiprino (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to this article, but 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. On Wikipedia the term is only used to describe distros when the distro itself is called "GNU/Linux", such as "Debian GNU/Linux", and then only when referring to the distro itself. If you want to change this consensus then the way to go about is not by trying to insert the term GNU/Linux into articles on distributions. You should read all the archives of Talk:Linux, to get the history of the problem as well as Talk:Linux/Name as this 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. When you have the history of the consensus read then you can present your case here to try to convince the other editors that all references "Linux" other than to the kernel itself in Wikipedia should be changed to "GNU/Linux". Be advised that this has been brought up dozens of times here, including recently and has always been soundly and conclusively opposed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

When you read past talks about consensus you will realize I participated in them too, and I was considered a "new editor" (i.e. despised) solely because I had few edits. In my book that is a fallacy. You will have to accept that the term Linux is wrong when you refer to the whole OS. In research you don't talk about Linux but GNU/Linux if you are working on the full system. That's the reliable source. Filiprino (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

You haven't cited any reliable source, just your own opinion. Since you seem to be on a personal GNU crusade here, you may want to review WP:THETRUTH. Since this issue has been brought up dozens of times before over many years and soundly rejected each time, unless you have some new information I think we are done here. See also WP:DEADHORSE. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not cited my personal opinion. You are jotting down your personal opinion. If you want a reliable source, you can read the Free Software Foundation's GNU/Linux FAQ. Or search for GNU/Linux and Linux in ACM and IEEE sites and read what they are talking about in one case and the other. Or read the introduction of or read the book which tells you some history about Linux, GNU and GNU/Linux as a whole. Even Free Software, Free Society has history contents. Filiprino (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The FSF/GNU project/Stallman has a long history of promoting the "GNU/Linux" wording, it is considered POV here as they are promoting themselves. If you read all the back pages I linked above you would see that has all been debated out long ago and we have a solid consensus over more than a decade to not use their POV and self-promotional terms. We decided to go with WP:COMMONNAME instead. Anyway you are just putting up very old arguments here, so we are done. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

And you are ignoring my other arguments. I have not only mentioned the FSF. Go read the books and papers. You are promoting industry terms, not scientific and educational terms. Are you working for the Linux Foundation or what? WP:COMMONNAME literally says this: In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. So much for quality encyclopedias! Filiprino (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Filiprino, I agree with your viewpoint, but please don't make edits like this one without consensus :)

I do whatever I want. I don't need consensus for nothing. Go to hell with that. Wikipedia is full of suckers. Filiprino (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you need consensus your edits are under dispute. See Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, etc. Eman235/talk 23:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't use the term "GNU/Linux" for any reason other than it's less ambiguous. This is the primary reason I would support changing Wikipedia's terminology -- I don't want to use the common name if it's unclear. Eman235/talk 20:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue with what he's saying is that "Linux" is the common name. This has been shown countless times before and are thoroughly documented in the talk page archives, but essentially "GNU/Linux" is very much a minority term that is extremely rarely used. Unless some sort of evidence can be shown that common usage has shift in the last month or so (since the last time this was brought up), then nothing has changed. Linux is the WP:COMMONAME for the subject, and GNU/Linux is a minority term used mostly by people pushing a FSF agenda. Yes, Filiprino was able to cite two books, but a couple of cherry-picked examples do not support a claim that GNU/Linux is the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject. All that those two books verify is that the term is used, which is reflected in the article. Per the sources they provided, there's no cause to change the article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Those two books show there is no controversy. The controversy is generated by the Linux Foundation supporters. I don't see the cause of Linux being the WP:COMMONNAME. There is no reliable source to show that. But there is technical, scientific proof that the correct name is GNU/Linux. Filiprino (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Aoidh, I wouldn't say that the name GNU/Linux is "very much a minority term" -- otherwise, I doubt we would have an article about it.

Filiprino -- The controversy is generated by the Linux Foundation supporters. -- isn't controversy caused equally by two parties?

I would like to see some reliable sources (statistics, perhaps) concerning usage. Eman235/talk 23:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to note, we don't have an article on it, GNU/Linux redirects to Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"isn't controversy caused equally by two parties" Perhaps in some cases, but not in this case, in fact that claim just muddies the waters. In this case the Linux Foundation has no part to play in it, they don't ask people to call operating systems anything. They call the kernel "Linux" and that is it. It has been the vast majority of the press, tech press, users and many developers and technical papers over many, many years that have made "Linux" the common term for operating systems running the Linux kernel. As noted in this article and GNU/Linux naming controversy, it has been FSF/GNU/Stallman that has tried to gain the credit they claim is due to themselves by trying to push an alternative name on everyone. Stallman has been speaking about this for two decades, but this issue was lost long ago. He came to my home town and gave a well-advertised public talk that was attended by fewer than a dozen people, because he just goes on and on about this name obsession and no one cares. The term "Linux" has stuck, because it is in common usage and that is unlikely to change in the future, even if the FSF sends some POV rep here to re-argue this same issue here every few months. - Ahunt (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You do not have any reliable source to say "Linux" is the common term. I have repeated you again and again: you act like supporting Linux Foundation and decline any fundamental FSF or GNU participation in the development of GNU/Linux. Like if the GNU project only created accessory parts lol. The API and ABI is defined by the GNU C Library, and that is why in academia you will read GNU/Linux used for the full system and Linux for the kernel. But on top of that you have all the core utils and even daemons. Filiprino (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

As per WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." This is a Wikipedia policy. It is not up to us to prove you wrong. You want to change the article, so it is up to you to provide convincing reasons to do that or else this just gets closed as "no consensus". So far attacking other editors and offering unsupported personal opinions isn't creating a new consensus here. - Ahunt (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I provide you facts, you reject them. You approve erroneous content for this article, not me. Filiprino (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You're wasting everyone's time, Filiprino. As others have explained, the issue has been debated many times and there is an existing consensus that we will use the term, "Linux", not "GNU/Linux", and that this is supported by WP:COMMONNAME and ample evidence that "Linux" is the far more common term. If you still aren't satisfied, you can post a WP:RM or WP:RFC, thus asking for the question to decided at formal debate. But realistically, you'll lose. You just will. Yes, I understand you are convinced you are right. But many more people think you are not. My advice is that you should get over it. You need to accept that you won't always get your way on WP, even when you are convinced you are right. Msnicki (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You are wasting my time and you are wasting your time because you want to. Accept the facts and change the article. That is all you need to do. You do not have any reliable source to say that WP:COMMONNAME supports the current article title and content. I am not going to get over it because there is nothing to get over. I am not convinced that I am right. I am right. Your own WP:COMMONNAME tells to use GNU/Linux and not Linux. Linux is confusing, go and read Wikipedia:Article titles. I have already told you that GNU/Linux is the operating system, not Linux. Without the GNU C library you do not have nothing. You do not have malloc and its memory pool. You do not have printf, you do not have write, you do not have an operating system, just a kernel. [GNU/Linux usage in IEEE]. [GNU/Linux usage in ACM]. GNU/Linux is technically correct and thus papers are accepted. GNU/Linux is more precise, so is the better term. [Improving the Quality of GNU/Linux Distributions]. Can you read that? Improving the quality of GNU/Linux distributions. Filiprino (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

And guess what? The Free Software Movement and the GNU/Linux Operating System. Can you read who wrote that article? Richard M. Stallman. Published in a scientific journal of the IEEE (2006 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance). Now talk about religion and this or that. Filiprino (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:THETRUTH and WP:DEADHORSE. - Ahunt (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It is laughable that you cite articles talking about opinions and time to give up the discussion when I have linked articles showing that GNU/Linux is the correct term and is a term accepted by the scientific community. It is not a point of view, which is an argument you throw all the time to anyone's face. But that argument is wrong and false, as I have already shown. Filiprino (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Once again, Filiprino, you can post a WP:RM or a WP:RfC to put the question to another formal debate if you doubt what we're telling you about the existing consensus. I think you will certainly lose but no one can stop you from requesting the formal debate. But simply insisting you're right and everyone else is wrong isn't going to convince anyone to do anything. You could try editing the article yourself without a consensus, but you'll certainly get reverted. If you then try edit warring, you will get blocked. I'm telling you what you need to know, what all the rest of us already know: You can be convinced you're right (and you're entitled to that opinion) but you need to accept that sometimes the consensus will go the other way here on WP and there's nothing you can do about it. You simply have to make your peace with that and find a way to move on. We have ALL had to learn to accept that. Msnicki (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Very strongly opposed — Filiprino, you are wrong and wasting everyone's time with this. Detailed mentions of "Linux" as the exceptionally well known and very widely used common name of an operating system are abundant over the span of multiple decades in WP:RS. The existence of mentions in other RS does not negate the overwhelming presence of RS which oppose your case. This has all been discussed before, and you are offering no new arguments or evidence. I strongly urge you to drop the WP:STICK and move on, before you end up pushing things too far and getting blocked for it. I propose a WP:SNOW close of this, to keep the peace. Murph9000 (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree - Obvious WP:SNOW, please close this. - Ahunt (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

No sir, you are wrong. You are wasting everyone's time because you want to. Your argument is that the GNU/Linux term is a Point of View. I show you proof it is not. You say I do not bring up new arguments nor evidence, I say I bring you evidence that was not shown before: GNU/Linux usage in IEEE, GNU/Linux usage in ACM, Improving the Quality of GNU/Linux Distributions, The Free Software Movement and the GNU/Linux Operating System, . In Springer you will find more results with GNU/Linux than with Linux. The top scientific associations of computer science accept the term GNU/Linux. It is not a Point of View. Your argument is wrong. On top of that, not only you have a debatable article title, but the article is biased towards industry way of thinking (OSI/Linux Foundation vs. FSF) and call controversy something which is not controversial. Close this if you want. But there is no POV nor controversy. Filiprino (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402195650/http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major to http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419155616/http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/staff to http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/staff
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3Aa8b87703-93f9-4cdf-885f-9429605e14df
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mdronline.com/watch/watch_Issue.asp?Volname=Issue%20%23110308&on=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)