Talk:Linux/Archive 45

Archive 40

←

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Archive 50

RAC

The "Respect Author's Choice" rule is important. In the article subject case, the main author is the GNU project. The GNU Project choice is GNU/Linux. So, we should name it GNU/Linux. Sosolal (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, that may be your rule but it's not a Wikipedia rule. It's not found anywhere in our guidelines. What is in our guidelines is WP:COMMONNAME, which asks that we use the most common name, which is overwhelmingly Linux, not GNU/Linux. Msnicki (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a moral rule. It's polite to respect it. Sosolal (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and a case can be made for WP:IGNORE - but in this case I can simply point out that WP:COMMONNAME says to make sure to consult with WP:POVTITLE and WP:PRECISE, and GNU/Linux is (by definition) less ambiguous. Seems to me there's far more rules in favor of GNU/Linux but WP:COMMONNAME is the only one that (can be construed to) prefer "Linux". Cd1207 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:POVNAME highlights that a minority POV term should not be used over the most recognized term, and WP:PRECISE specifically notes that a primary topic makes an exception and outweighs over-precision, especially an over-precision is used by very few sources and shows undue bias towards a minority POV. You're welcome to read the numerous archives on this talk page (found at the top) that go into more detail, but saying that it's "only WP:COMMONNAME" is inaccurate, saying that "there's far more rules in favor of GNU/Linux" even more so. - Aoidh (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should WP:IGNORE WP:COMMONNAME and prefer W:PRECISE. Also, the WP:NPOV is a bit weird : Wikipedia is itself a WP:POV, so we should simply WP:IGNORE WP:NPOV too in cases which can be critical for free culture (and so software) as this naming controversy. Unfortunately, WP:NPOV is a WP:PILLAR and we cannot WP:IGNORE it. :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.212.130.163 (talk • contribs)

Given that WP:PRECISE notes that WP:PRIMARY is more important, even WP:PRECISE supports the current title, given that this article's subject is overwhelmingly the primary topic for the word Linux. So even ignoring WP:COMMONNAME, there's nothing supporting such a change, not even WP:IGNORE. - Aoidh (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

But how to tell it? This is an ERROR. And this is in encyclopedias's goals to CORRECT that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.212.130.163 (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a very small, very vocal minority's opinion that it is an error, nothing more. It is not "in encyclopedia's goals" to help a small group push an agenda, especially when that would put the article at odds with reliable sources. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to "correct" what is, only to reflect it. - Aoidh (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"the main author is GNU" this is unfounded claim: the GNU part of a complete linux distro is not the majority, see e.g. http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux/ , so it should be not at all called GNU/linux. Also the historical notation that without GNU parts there would be no linux is most likely wrong, more likely is the opposite, without the linux kernel there would no GNU anymore. Please, stop this annoying and time wasting naming controversy. Shaddim (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You are totally wrong, the Linux part are 1,5% and GNU is 15%. But this is not the question : If I remove KDE and/or X, it works fine. In command-line, but fine. If I remove apt, dpkg or rpm, it works fine. Not easy for install software but fine (see source distros, ./configure && make && sudo make install). If I remove Java, Java software will not works. But there is no so much Java software. And no important Java software at all. If I remove Mozilla, you can always use other browsers/mail such as GNUzilla or Debian Ice*. But if I remove Linux, it will not work. If I remove GNU, it will not work. You say GNU wouldn't exists without Linux, but how GNU would exists, Linux was born in 90's and GNU in 80's. No, really, Linux couldn't exists without GNU. Where the shell, the commands, the compilers, the text editors, the browsers, etc. would be? You're simply wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.212.130.163 (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources please? according to everything I found, the GNU part gets more and more negligible. Additionally, for these parts more and more alternatives are available, like for GCC the Clang/LLVM. PS: no one questions the historical importance of GNU but technical they get more and more unimportant. Shaddim (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

[www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#allsmall Hum, hum.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.212.130.163 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

it is outdated and not a neutral source. this is at least three years newer and uses a relevant distro (Ubuntu); according to this source GNU has not the majority anymore & can be mostly substituted. Shaddim (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Find me a popular distro which substitute the really importants bash, coreutiles, inetutils, glibc and other stuff like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 18:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it is actually substituted, the existence of alternatives for almost every GNU part shows that the GNU stuff is not essential anymore. And even un-substituted, the gnu part is small in real world distros. Shaddim (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is about GNU/Linux as used now, and there is no popular BSD/Linux distros (for example) actually. And if one day it exists... That will make another reason to name this article "GNU/Linux" : to not be confused with BSD/Linux (for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 08:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Overall, this (technical) discussion is fruitless as wikipedia should only reflect the reality and not define concepts and find best fitting names. Reality has already voted long ago by feet for "Linux" (and it makes also sense from a technical point of view). Shaddim (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Linux" is technically incorrect : if you install Linux on a computer, it will not works : it will show you a black screen maybe. But no any interface exists in Linux. The interface is GNU. GNU/Linux is the only technically correct name. If "Linux" article redirdects to "GNU/Linux", I don't see the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 12:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't use GNU as "interface"(?) , I use a bunch of tools, libraries and software (partly developed under the GNU umbrella) in my Linux system, packaged by a distro, driven by the Linux kernel. 99% of people share this point of view. Accept the reality, you can't bend the reality to your definition. Shaddim (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Who develops the glibc? The coreutils? bash? inetutils? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 12:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't let it go? As I said already a small part of the software is developed under the GNU umbrella. As other parts are developed under the Mozilla, Apache or other organizations' umbrella. GNU is just a small (and replaceable) contributor like others. Shaddim (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So find me a popular distro which replace it, two possible solutions :

1. You find me it -> We rename this article "GNU/Linux" for discern distros using GNU and distros using another operating system (for example : BSD/Linux).
2. You don't find me it -> GNU is a part of the operating system -> We rename the article "GNU/Linux" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the burden of proof is on your side, I will stopp here arguing with you. There is no accepted formal or technical reason or broad real world acceptance for "GNU/linux". Shaddim (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As talking to a wall. How you cannot understand? GNU is needed for do things!

Actually, no. GNU is not needed for do things, in fact most live linux systems in the world are running without GNU (read: embedded systems). --Kim D. Petersen 13:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This embedded systems uses GNU. And Android aren't the subject of this article. There is Android (Google/Linux?) for that.

Why would they use GNU? And i didn't refer to Android. I was referring to Routers/STB's/DVD-players/Switches/Watches/... most will be using busybox and statically linked programs - with a high probability not even having used GCC to be compiled. And this article is about those systems as well... --Kim D. Petersen 14:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Only one reaally small section is dedication to it. This article is still about GNU/Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 14:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

They are still Linux systems, and not GNU ones, and this article is also about those. GNU is not an essential part of Linux. Despite the earlier assertion that "GNU is needed for do things!", GNU isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 14:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

GNU is. You need a shell, commands, a C runtime library, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you think only GNU makes shells, commands and C runtime libraries? How do you think embedded Linux systems work, when they aren't using GNU? You can't have it both ways: GNU is always needed, is invalidated if GNU is not always needed. --Kim D. Petersen 14:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Embedded systems use GNU too. And anyway, this article is about GNU/Linux, the desktop use and the server use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Why would a system using Busybox use GNU? You are asserting here. And No. This article is not about GNU/Linux - it is about Linux in all its variations and guises. --Kim D. Petersen 12:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

So, this is Busybox/Linux. Do it in a seperate article. This is really more WP:PRECISE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You are dancing around the topic. This article is not about desktop Linux, or server Linux - it is about all types and variants of Linux. And that includes Linux with no GNU at all. --Kim D. Petersen 20:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That is that which is bad! We have Embedded Linux for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 13:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless the so called "Author's choice" isn't FSF, RMS or the GNU community's choice. It's the Linux community's choice, and most distros choose to call themselves Linux, not GNU/Linux(although Debian does).

Oh btw, [no offense and off-topic], remember to sign your edits, our SineBot is quite busy, and the auto-signing doesn't look nice. Busukxuan (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we have Embedded Linux to cover that topic in more detail, but we also have GNU/Linux naming controversy to cover what you're suggesting, Sosolal; this article covers all aspects of Linux. Just as the American Civil War is mentioned in United States in summary style even though there's an article for that more specific topic, embedded Linux isn't ignored on this article just because there's a more detailed article that goes into that topic more than this general one does. Like it or not, this article could not ever be called GNU/Linux, because it covers topics that are not GNU/Linux, even according to RMS, who is quite adamant that Android (for example) not be called GNU/Linux (because it's not), so in order to name this topic GNU/Linux, we would have to arbitrarily limit the scope of the article to only cover topics that meet one person's definition of a specific kind of Linux as opposed to making this a summary-style article that covers all aspects of Linux, and that's not going to happen. - Aoidh (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a sentence to add : "Embedded systems using Linux kernel often use Busybox instead of GNU. It's NOT GNU/Linux. However, the desktop and server uses are still often (always?) GNU/Linux.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosolal (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that (ignoring that this subsection's topic is what the article's name should be) is that reliable sources don't support that claim. It's called GNU/Linux...by a small minority. It is not the name of the article's subject in any official or significant capacity, and calling this article GNU/Linux would create more problems than it would be worth, and adding that sentence would violate Wikipedia policy. Unless reliable sources change a change in name, this article isn't likely to. - Aoidh (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, no embedded linux doesn't necessarily use BusyBox, they can use many other alternatives, and don't forget that there are several "embedded" Linux OSes that still use the GNU userland: Tizen, Ubuntu Touch and mer(and therefore sailfish) are all based on GNU userland.(no, they aren't truly embedded, see below for difference between touch oriented and embedded)

On the other hand, though currently rare, desktop and server Linux isn't necessarily "GNU/Linux" too. Android is not strictly embedded, when Android-x86 is installed on a PC it's a general purpose computer, not a computer that performs a specific function within a larger system and therefore not an embedded system; it can run any general purpose application written for it, unlike real embedded OSes that run only a very narrow range of functions like OpenELEC HTPC. Note that Android itself, though minding many requirements and constraints an embedded system needs, is actually designed to be an OS suitable for any touch-based device, embedded/mobile or not, and I also wouldn't use it for an embedded system without a UI(and thus has little user interaction), such as one in a router or most information appliances(that is, except perhaps a smart home control center, smart TV or the like). The fact that it is mostly used in embedded systems only means that most touch-only interfaces in present day is embedded, not that Android itself is directly suited or designed for embedded use. In the future, maybe physical keyboards will just disappear to save space, and all desktops will become touch based, which keyboard is replaced with other more space-efficient things like projection keyboard, a soft and thin bluetooth keyboard as portable as paper, and mouse is entirely replaced by touch screens. It is also possible to create a desktop oriented Linux OS that contains no GNU. Therefore, "GNU/Linux" is not to be confused with desktop Linux. Busukxuan (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note the "often"s.

But that doesn't address any problem, does it? The thing is the distros themselves call themselves Linux, not GNU/Linux. If everyone is like Debian and call themselves things like GNU/Linux Mint, or perhaps Arch GNU/Linux, then we'd respect the choice of those distros. Similarly Debian should be called "GNU/Linux" on its own article, but not here. GNU is not the author if the distros, they are the author of a component of the distros in which non-GNU components like Weston(Wayland) or X.org is not made from GNU, and many things else found on freedesktop.org. Busukxuan (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Then, article should state "Linux is the name of various operating systems based on the Linux kernel". Either there is the (single) GNU/Linux operating system, or, as you say, there are multiple operating systems that are called Linux. In its current form, this article is talking about something non-existent: if Linux is an operating system, please tell me where I can download that single operarting system - not a Linux distro. --151.75.0.15 (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Linux should be defined as a family of operating systems running on the Linux kernel. I'll create a new talk section to discuss about this. Busukxuan (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What is Linux? (and thus what are the OSes and distros this article should cover, among so many of varying difference and unorthodoxy?)

Note: As discussed before, this article talks about what we identify as "traditional Linux", "desktop Linux", "GNU/Linux" and the like, not any OS that runs on the Linux kernel like Android.

Linux has always been distinct and easily distinguishable from other Unix-like operating systems, not by what API and services the system offers, but by the origins of the software components it comes with - many from GNU and freedesktop.org. This distinction however is blurred by the fact that the available Linux distributions are growing ever more diverse, and that Linux is not necessarily used as the kernel for GNU and freedesktop.org based OSes. One example is Debian GNU/Hurd, it runs on the same components as Debian GNU/Linux (using the official name) but a different kernel. Here the defining component for Linux would be the kernel. In another example, Ubuntu is developing Mir in place of X as their new display server. In this case, Ubuntu is still Linux, but it has neither X nor Wayland, so the display server cannot be a part of Linux's definition. Ubuntu touch, as Ubuntu with a different UI, is Linux, but is not desktop or server oriented, so the desktop/server cannot be part of the definition either. Yet, with only the kernel as a defining component, Linux would inevitably mean any OS running on the Linux kernel, while "Linux" here only means the more "traditional" Linux-based operating systems. For example, Android is in a wholly different category than Arch or Slackware so Android is not Linux.

In an attempt to give Linux a better definition, I have come up with this table:

OS	Userland Base	Kernel	Linux?
Ubuntu Touch	GNU + freedesktop.org	Linux	Yes
Tizen	GNU + freedesktop.org	Linux	Yes
Debian GNU/Linux	GNU + freedesktop.org	Linux	Yes
Debian GNU/Hurd	GNU + freedesktop.org	GNU Hurd	No
Android	bionic + Dalvik + BSD	Linux	No
Firefox OS	Web standards	Linux	No
Google Chrome OS	Web standards (but it does include standard Linux components)	Linux	Yes, though meaningless/insignificant

So it turns out what I could come up with was that Linux is defined by its use of GNU and freedesktop.org components(plus several other tools not found in other OSes of course) alongside the Linux kernel. However, the definition may also be extended to include either X or Wayland, with Ubuntu being an exception since it has always been an oddity among distros.

Why a definition matters:
Of course, Wikipedia articles don't get written around definitions. Furthermore, there is not any formal definition for Linux, so we should not assume what it is. I know it is loosely defined, but in order to rule in/out some operating systems that may or may not be Linux, and to give readers a better idea of what Linux is like(in the lead. It's not going to define linux, just state what Linux'es have in common, since this is not a formal definition) , I think it'd be good to yield a consensus-based "definition" for internal use. This "definition" should not be used outside the scope of this article, and it should be changed if the Linux community grows towards a direction that would render it obsolete.

What do you think? How should it be "defined"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busukxuan (talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think this is a waste of time. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. Busukxuan (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)