Talk:Linux/Archive 19

message: Is there any reference to prove that the Motif really runs Linux? I thought the claim was interesting, but I cannot easily find proof of it online. I've found a PDF (http://www.mvista.com/downloads/Case_study_MontaVista_Linux_and_Yamaha.pdf) which shows that the Motif XS line of products uses MontaVista Linux. I will edit the article accordingly. Greenlead 16:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Embedded Devices: Yamaha Motif 

message: I just caught this ZDNet blog post, which brought up the point that the things that people might look for from this article aren't currently emphasized.  In particular, he doesn't seem to like the fact that the history is put above any actual description of what Linux actually is (other than the short literal definition in the lede).  While we certainly don't want to "get more Windows users to switch to Linux", of course, the point may be something to consider. —AySz88\^-^ 07:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few problems with this. The first is that it's only possible to talk about what an operating system is for so long before the article reads like a condescending advert. As you say, we're really actively trying to avoid targeting this at curious Windows switchers. The second is that Linux really is different things to different people, and that the blog post in question is really targeted pretty directly at "Ubuntu" of "GNOME" or whatever rather than "Linux". I think the best solution to this is to clean up the wording of desktop distros in the intro. Chris Cunningham 11:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deemphasize history? 

message: I, per Wikipedia:Criticism, which states the following:
:In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged.
propose to remove the section entitled "Criticisms" and merge the content that presently exists within to sections that are more appropriate and are directly related to the material. I believe this would improve the quality of this article. Please give your opinion, if you care to provide it, so that we may reach consensus on what we should do regarding this issue. Iccdel 02:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. ¦ Reisio 04:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Totally agreed, what's next "Praises" section? --AdrianTM 05:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Waves hands in the air in typical silent consensus reaching manner* (aka. Agree!) -Localzuk(talk) 12:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes criticisms a lot harder to find though... :S
~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 17:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticisms" section 

message: Being familiar with *nix's I know how linux fits in: otherwise, I would be misled by 'unix-like' which would imply immitation, but not necesarily compatibility. 
The introduction would benefit from a refinement of 'unix-like' to reflect less ambiguously what 'like' means: 
for example, posix, portability due to common methods and a common infrastructure and so forth (e.g. redirction, piping - including the exact syntax as well as the implementation). 66.245.28.149 21:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Unix clone" would be better? Actually it's not a clone since it differers in some aspects (even improving over Unix) -- AdrianTM 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The term "Unix-like" is pretty common. It's reasonable to expand this as meaning "largely POSIX-compliant" or "Unix-compatible", as long as it's clear what's meant by "compatible" ... --FOo 03:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup. Unix-like goes over this in some details. The GNU folk have been using "Unix-like" in this sense for over twenty years now, so it's not like it's a neologism. Chris Cunningham 09:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agree @ Chris Edgesurge 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unix-Like ? 

message: I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of July 12, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: It is well written
:2. Factually accurate?: All sources are stated
:3. Broad in coverage?: Provides Coverage on major aspects.
:4. Neutral point of view?: I did not see any bias, however the criticism needs to be bigger
:5. Article stability? Lot of traffic on this article, however, it does not change constantly.
:6. Images?: Images helps the article, "A Picture is worth a thousand words"
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. 
— -FlubecaTalk 01:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just echo Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Linux/archive1 - David Gerard's comment. History seems to repeat itself constantly with this page, unfortunately. RN 03:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: excuse my ignorance (I'm a 'noob' at this), should there be some reference to Mr. Torvalds writing this "just for fun"(apparently his own words)? -it seems relevant as this was what got me interested me in the subject in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The evil jelly (talk • contribs) 01:21, 14 July 2007
:it is. See the wikiquotes link at the bottom. -_Laugh! 10:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just for fun? 

message: Firstly, this talk of WP:CON is highly amusing. I've been involved in pages and pages of discussion here and the current history section got the way it did after a very large amount of discussion. Bold, contentious reworking of the history section to convey a different impression of the subject is unwarranted at this stage. To revert to such a version while making claims of consensus makes no sense whatsoever. Chris Cunningham 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is definitely a need for more headers. They separate what came before linux (which is vital in order to understand where Linux was coming from), and where Linux itself began. --Laugh! 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no need to do this. It's a summary article and the history consists of only four short paragraphs.Chris Cunningham 14:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, and not to mention it's way too large anyway. I was planning on removing it. This is a case where trying to improve on someone else's edits will get you farther than edit warring. I might put work-in-progress on the page for a bit while I work on that section. I DO think there are some things done better in your version, and I'd rather take the best parts of both of them than just act like one is better than the other and that's that. --Laugh! 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's nice, but removing a disagreeable edit which wasn't there this morning isn't "working towards consensus".Chris Cunningham 14:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think they (most of it's from the German Wikipedia) just put it in there because they were talking about GNU. Mike92591 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see what you're talking about, but again, this could be easily solved by working WITH other editors instead of acting like you are better than them. Now please, stop edit warring, and start edit conf'ing. Reverting to the same version over and over again never got a Wiki anywhere --Laugh! 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the top of the current talk page, or the end of the last one. Chris Cunningham 14:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: GNU was some operating system waiting for someone to plug in a kernel. At the time there really was no other free and useful kernel (hurd sucked,BSD was not legitimate). Linux certainly filled the gap for a free OS. Mike92591 22:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: The lack of a subheader does not confer any sort of default acceptance. I have no idea where you're getting this. Chris Cunningham 14:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UI 

message: Like I've tried to tell you more than enough times, instead of simply reverting, try to actually improve an edit you disagree with. Right now, yes, the version isn't perfect (I'm comparing and contrasting your version, and will be fixing it up and incorporating things I think are better in your revert version), but your version is far worse. and the upper level could be supplied by the X Window System, barely makes sense to me, and I've been using computers far longer than I remember. Saying that it provides the upper level is inaccurate and confusing. How the heck is someone who knows little about computers (let's admit it, if you know nothing of them, you aren't reading this article) going to understand what "Upper Level" is? A "GUI environment", or something to that effect is much clearer, and to the point. device drivers and daemons had stalled and was incomplete. is grammar that just pains me. In addition, making specific sections for CLI and GUI are needed, as otherwise it gives the impression that the main user interface is the command line, which is very off-putting to anyone that would consider using Linux, and insulting to the grand majority of modern Linux users (ignoring servers) that use GUIs more than CLI. Separating in the history of linux section is needed to distinguish between what came before linux (which would be impossible to understand the beginnings of without), and what actually came with linux --Laugh! 14:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just bat-signal level projection. By continuing to revert to a disagreeable version (which pushes the "filled a gap" POV that has already been discussed on here) you're not providing a solid foundation upon which to discuss more nuanced changes. I'm not going to discuss style minutae in a section which has just been rewritten to present an overall disagreeable POV. I have no problem discussing edits here, and most of the rewording of the last two edits is fine. But doing so while accusing me of being a troll and blanket-reverting my own edits is not going to get me in a good mood. The be bold, revert, discuss cycle favours working from the present version of an article to improve it by backporting good bits. Chris Cunningham 14:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thumperward 

message: Okay, my bad. The current version is pretty decent, though I still disagree with the overuse of subheaders. We should be able to work from here. Chris Cunningham 14:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's both of our bads. Anyway, ideally, I'd like to condense that entire section into a few paragraphs. That really should be handled in the history of linux article, not here, but we do need to give a summary. The "naming" and "Milestones" sections can probably be killed with fire- they're somewhat opinionated no matter how you put it, and don't really add anything to someone reading this article. The other sections should be separated somehow, although if we can convert the first one into a single neat paragraph, just starting a new paragraph would be fine there. As far as the UI thing goes, I still think CLI and GUI both need their own section, but we should put a little bit of information on what a UI is too. Maybe a  to User Interface, and a simple one or two sentence explanation of what a computer UI does? --Laugh! 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The thing is, I see "no header" as just being another section, thus negating the need for one. As for the Milestones section, yeah, it needs totally restructured. It's utterly arbitrary and isn't chronological. More time for this later I hope. Chris Cunningham 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, should we knock out those two sections? They could be added in to the actual History section later if they're notable enough to have a place in this article (I personally don't think so, but "in 199x, Linux gained a large step forward with the release of OOo" in the history section makes a lot more sense than a "Milestones" subcategory. The naming controversy could probably be mentioned in it's own section, down near the bottom, so it could get a bit more care to help remove the POV-ness, without taking away much attention or adding WP:UNDUE to it. As far as UI goes, that's really personal opinion I suppose, the MOS isn't really clear. Judging by Today's Featured Article, I'd say that having a heading and then a subheading right next to each other is fine --Laugh! 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mind if the sections are removed. They were originally brought here in a large restructuring by User:Chris Pickett a while ago, by translating from the featured French article. I really think we should avoid overstretching ourselves by trying to cover the whole of the free software movement if possible. And yeah, the sections is no biggie, it just go caught in the way of the earlier reverts really. Chris Cunningham 20:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stability