Talk:Linux/Archive 4

message: Is it me, or is the text a bit hard to understand? There are more than a few grammatical errors that prevent people from getting the complete meaning of the sentences. Somebody please fix that, since the quality of the information presented is as important as the quantity and validity.
:I'll see what I can do when I have some time (probably later today or so).Tommstein 21:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Point it out or fix it yourself, this is a wiki - it's a team sport. ¦ Reisio 01:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Point it out or fix it yourself", yes he pointed it out, your point? --161.76.99.106 13:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that he should be bold and make the edits himself rather than post it on here. That is the wiki-way. -Localzuk (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is It Me?

message: According to Linus's autiobio, Just For Fun, Linus did think up the name Linux as a working title, but planned to call the "release" version "Freax". Of course, Ari Lemmke told him what a godawful name Freax is, and recommended he stick with Linux.
Also, should we have rms's picture above linus's? The article is about with Linus did, after all. --Taejo | Talk]] 14:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about Linux-based operating systems, and is not specific to the Linux kernel (what Linus did).  The history section is organized chronologically, which seems like the most neutral and reasonable way to do it.  Regarding the naming, a closer look at the different accounts may be in order. —Steven G. Johnson 17:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What Steven said. ¦ Reisio 18:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the name "Linux" and Stallman's picture. 

message: Above, Taejo suggested that Linus' book, Just for Fun, has an account of the "Linux" naming that conflicts with the one in Wikipedia.  I don't have the book, but the relevant passages seems to be partly quoted here:
:Honest I didn't want to ever release it under the name  Linux because it was too egotistical. What was the name I reserved  for any eventual release? Freax. (Get it? Freaks with the requisite X.) In fact, some of the early make files—the files that describe  how to compile the sources—included the word "Freax" for about half a year. But it really didn't matter. At that point I didn't need a  name for it because I wasn't releasing it to anybody.
:And Ari Lemke, who insured that it made its way to the ftp site, hated the name Freax. He preferred the other working name I admit that I didn't put up much of a fight. But it was his doing. So I can honestly say I wasn't egotistical, or half-honestly say I wasn't egotistical. But I thought okay, that's a good name, and I can always blame somebody else for it, which I'm doing now.
::Linus Torvalds, Just for Fun, pp. 84 and 88
Although it would be nice to see the paragraph before the first one above, it sounds like Taejo is right and that "Linux" was one of Linus' working titles (although not his preferred one), and that Lemmke was the one who made the final choice rather than being responsible for coinage per se.
If anyone has the book, can you check if it says anything more about the name "Linux"?   
(Also, is the "Lemke" (mis)spelling in the original book?  "Lemmke" seem correct .)
Can anyone find a first-hand account by Lemmke himself?  I'm sure he could add additional details, and it would also be good to confirm Linus' memory of events since it somewhat conflicts with the common story (urban legend?) repeated numerous places online.  (I suppose one could email him for confirmation, but that verges on original research.  It would be better if he could be persuaded to post a first-hand account somewhere, e.g. the Linux kernel mailing list, that we could link to.)
—Steven G. Johnson 17:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming of "Linux"

message: Asteroid 9885 Linux named after the computer operating system, has been added to this page.  I don't know if this is verified.  The arsteroid with that number is named Linux, however I do cannot confirm that it was named after the OS.—Gaff ταλκ 18:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Meanings of asteroid names (9501-10000), 9793 Torvalds named after Linus Torvalds, 9965 GNU named after GNU, 9885 Linux named after Linux. — Yaohua2000 19:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asteroid 

message: This article needs more technical info.  I'm curious about several things but finding the information on the Internet isn't going so well, even with google.  It's raising more questions though; like in searching for the difference between preempt_voluntary and kernel preempt, I came across the idea of priority-inheriting semaphores. . . . .
How about running over these:
* Comparison of the various IO schedulers
* Explaination of the task scheduler
* Preemption
** Voluntary preemption (CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY)
** Kernel preemption (CONFIG_PREEMPT)
** Preemption of the big kernel lock
* Priority-inheriting semaphores
* MontaVista's real-time Linux work and Ingo Molnar's progress beyond
Some of these are theorized but not implemented (i'm not sure if priority-inheriting semaphores are written yet, I think they're in Ingo Molnar's patch); some are there already (Preemption); some are external patches (Molnar's realtime patches).  We could use some info about the status of all of these.
--John Moser 18:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, although I'm not sure whether the stuff should all be inserted straight into this article or put into separate articles that are linked to from here. Now all we need is someone with the knowledge and time to do it.Tommstein 19:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: All of these issues are specific to the Linux kernel, and belong on that page rather than here.   This article is about complete Unix-like operating systems using the Linux kernel, not about the kernel per se.  —Steven G. Johnson 19:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More technical info 

message: I would really like this article to become a featured article. The main objection I've seen from the previous nomination was that the article was too pro-Linux. This should be addressed. To start off, I added some anti-Linux links to page (one of the complaints). Masterhomer  23:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing POV 

message: I think that the Gnome desktop screenshoot needs to be updated (it looks old and outdated). Since the KDE screenshoot is of the Suse desktop, lets have a Ubuntu desktop screenshoot. ~ Cody Somerville
: This has been discussed A LOT on GNOMEs talk-page. I changed the picture to use the same as GNOME do. - David Björklund (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gnome Screenshoot needs update 

message: I added, then removed an POV tag after reading this page. However, I do want to bring up the point that really has failed to be addressed, and that is the article contains little or no mention of problems with Linux, esp. compared with other OS.
I'm not a very strong editor, so someone else should probably work on that.
:Such as?Tommstein 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Why does the following sentence exist?
:Since then, there have been numerous independent studies that show that a modern Linux desktop using Gnome or KDE is on par with or superior to Microsoft Windows.
I think that it should either have a reference to some studies or be removed. Else it provides a POV aspect to the article.-localzuk 22:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While there should certainly be sources, there's a whole heck of a lot of other things that don't have specific sources listed, so I don't know why you focused on that one (and I actually remember reading about some of those studies). A lack of sources doesn't make something POV, it makes it unsourced. Unfortunately, the vast majority of probably every single Wikipedia article is unsourced, lest articles become illegible and no one ever add any information because they don't have an hour to spend before making every single edit.Tommstein 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I used the wrong term. I don't agree think it should be ok to just ignore lack of sources though as it reduces the credibility of wikipedia. I think I focused on that example because I was editing that block of text already. I will have a look at providing some sources throughout the article today. -localzuk 09:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now added a reference to an article by RedmondMag but could still do with some studies. -localzuk 11:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sure, sure, there's nothing wrong with asking for sources. I'll look later and see if I can't add some more myself.Tommstein 06:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's a couple more articles at least.Tommstein 07:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 

message: I am re-removing the Hungarian search engine link from external links as it is not really useful to the english article. It should be in the Hungarian article instead. -localzuk 20:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian Linux Search engine link in external links 

message: I don't think the linux counter () should be classed as spam and removed. It is used by a significant number of linux users so does have some value in the article. Does anyone else agree?-localzuk 09:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what's wrong with it.Tommstein 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The linux counter 

message: I have here a copy of Just For Fun, Torvalds' autobiography/bio of Linux, and he says that Freax was "Freaks with the requisite X".  The article states it meant "Free with the requisite X".  Why?  --'Net 07:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a mistake, or a incorrect source. Why not WP:BB and change it? (Including the reference of course) :)-Localzuk (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Freax 

message: Alright, I don't care about the actual pronunciation dispute - but the plaintext examples given look *very* localised. I (complacently) added 'American English' before the 'my nicks' etc since as a British English speaker the IPA schwa -> short 'i' is  decidedly foreign. I call for someone more linguisty to make this a bit clearer to speakers of other English vars.  Sorrry for terseness, broken keyboard 82.71.38.203 15:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: I have just noticed that the following has been inserted (changed from a prior version):
Some studies, such as those by IDC and Gartner have argued that Linux had a higher TCO than Windows. Others, such as those by Soeren Research and RFG claim the opposite. Many of the studies, most notably studies which were later found to have been funded by Microsoft themselves, have been criticized as unbalanced and biased, although a number of studies which gave results favorable to Linux were commissioned by companies such as IBM and Novell.
Why are Novell and IBM mentioned? IBM is a huge company which has just as vested an interest in Windows as it does Linux and Unix.
When were the studies funded by Novell done? Before or after their purchase of SuSE? If after, then that is fine, but if before then the company should be removed - as they also had a vested interest in Windows as their software operates (predominantly) on the platform. -Localzuk (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studies? 

message: "Richard Stallmankukifasz" or something...
-Mardus 16:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History: Stallman's name seems vandalized 

message: Especially in the Usability section. Whoever wrote the usability article probably doesn't have much experience in being a Joe Shmo user. Also it may not be mentioned in the article but keep in mind, it may be easy to install Linux but once you do then what?
:I think it was relatively good in citing sources rather than trying to state an opinion. There have been reports both anecdotal and methodical that the switchover of Windows-trained users is the costly part; new users train as easily on Linux as on Windows, they get their job done in approximately the same amount of time on average, and they have the same number of horror stories to tell, even.... --Alvestrand 02:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article claims that Linux is user-friendly now, which is true. It wasn't always this way; back in the days of clumsy text installs with no hardware autodetection, Linux was mostly for the hardcore. Debian only recently adopted an ncurses-based install. Considering the strides made, and the attempt to meet in the middle, Linux's user-friendliness is proven. Isopropyl 03:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone else think this article is a tad bias 

message: The Linux Kernel rarely even compiles on this arch, I run it on sparc64 hardware myself and to put it quite bluntly: I usually have to add code that has magically been broken, deleted, or whatever to get it to ever work usually. This is on the 2.6 branch, which is a pain in the arse. I think parhaps this fact should go mentioned so something gets done about it. Unless I become a full time sparc64 porter, which I can't be bothered doing, unless OSDL plan on giving me a job that is. --Kintaro 20:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning it here isn't going to make the kernel maintainers make the situation any better. I have a USPARC myself, although its not see Linux in quite some time due to the wonderful (complete lack of) speed of gcc-created code on that platform... --Kiand 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UltraSPARC port 

message: Somewhat offtopic, but after a bit of an edit-war, a user has proposed merging parts of the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey with the Linux kernel mailing list article. So I'm calling on interested editors to give their opinion there, so a consensus can be reached on this without an edit-war. Thanks. --BluePlatypus 19:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LKML merge 

message: I really don't see why the following should be on the Linux page:
"Criticism of Linux
*Microsoft: Get the Facts — Microsoft site that compares Windows Server software and Linux and comes to the conclusion that Microsoft software has a lower TCO than Linux."
I feel the above "Criticism of Linux" link to Microsoft's site should be moved to the Windows vs. Linux page, and a link to http://www.novell.com/linux/truth/better_choice.html added from Novell's site for rebuttal. After all, wouldn't it be better suited on that particular page rather than the main Linux page? If not, I may look into additions of criticism links for the main Windows page as it appears wanting in that respect. :) Let's play nice and move this to the Windows vs. Linux page, what say you all, hmmm? :) --Demonslave 13:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that link is already on the Windows vs. Linux page, so why have it listed on the Linux and Windows vs. Linux page? --Demonslave 13:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Move '''Criticism of Linux''' Section to [[Windows_vs._Linux]] 

message: *The fact that since many websites are developed for Internet explorer on windows, (particularly banks) sometimes browser bugs occur on linux.
:I would say no to this one as it is more to do with web browsers than the OS they run on (ie Firefox for Windows has the same issues with IE only sites as the linux version does)-Localzuk (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be discussed on the oracle page.-Localzuk (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This I would say possibly if it can be backed up with citations (which I am sure there are many) -Localzuk (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the following be mentioned?