Talk:Linux/Archive 13

message: I would like it to stay as it is, with Linux being the term used and a section regarding the controversy included. I would also like to see a small sentence in the lead saying something like 'There has been some debate over the use of the term Linux to describe the OS, particularly by the FSF who request that people call it 'GNU/Linux' ' or similar.-Localzuk(talk) 18:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are at least two separate issues.  One is naming, and you've given an opinion on that (which I disagree with) but the other is description: is the OS made of "Linux plus some extras" or is it "GNU plus Linux plus some extras"?  The scope of this article is a "Unix-like" OS, so GNU is present in every such Linux-based OS.  Further, as well as being present, it is a much larger contribution in each such OS, it is a contribution that pre-dates Linux, and it is the contribution which is the reason for a complete OS existing (the other parts, such as Linux and X Windows, that made an OS exist were made for goals other than to make an OS exist).  So it seems much more accurate to define this OS (whatever name you use) in respect to the primary contribution: GNU.  I'm not saying that the intro should not mention the Linux kernel, I'm just disagreeing with the people who say the intro should not mention the GNU OS.  What do you think about the issue of mentioning the GNU OS in the intro? Gronky 19:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In think you are becoming confused by the use of the term Linux. This article describes the unix like OS. It doesn't matter if it is predominantly made up of GNU, Linux or TuxRacer. What matters is the fact that the majority of the world call this OS 'Linux'. The 2 terms, Linux for the OS and Linux for the kernel, should be considered as completely separate terms. But if you disagree, please state in this section what you would like to see as the outcome and don't just discuss further. If we know what people want we can come to a compromise a lot quicker!-Localzuk(talk) 20:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done.  I added two words "GNU and" to the first line. Gronky 20:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Bear in mind that the intro is supposed to be a summary of all the section in the article so it can stand on its own as a mini-article.-Localzuk(talk) 20:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Warren, no one is talking about the GNU toolchain, we're talking about the GNU OS.  The toolchain is just a subset.  You're description of the Linux-GNU relationship needs clarification: The relation between the Linux kernel and GNU is the GPL - but the relation between the OS we are talking about and GNU is that GNU is part of the OS we are talking about. (and by "a part of", I mean "is the primary part of".) There are no Unix-like OSes that use Linux for a kernel and that don't use GNU.  Gronky 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "GNU OS" != "Linux". Sure, GNU OS can use the Linux kernel, but... so? There are plenty of systems out there that implement "Linux" without much in the way of GNU components. iPod Linux is the first example of this that I can think of off the top of my head. Mobile phones from Motorola, too. I'm sure if we poked around a bit we could find plenty of other examples of Linux being used without GNU... think of embedded systems where the IHV will use a scaled-down Linux kernel and write their own drivers and userland stuff. You don't have to use anything by GNU to accomplish this, and yet, such products are described in the media and by the manufacturer as "Linux". The only shared aspect between all these embedded, portable, desktop, and server devices is that they use the Linux kernel. No GNU in sight. That's why I don't think "GNU/Linux" deserves equal footing to "Linux"; it's really only one way of making use of the Linux kernel.  -/- Warren 22:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not about embedded systems or firmware, the article is about Unix-like operating systems.  Yes, you can put Linux on a computer (big or small) and little else and turn it on and you will be "running Linux", but you will not be sitting at a Unix-like OS.  Please do the poking around that you suggest is possible. Gronky 16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So then delete Unix-like from the opening line.  Chris Pickett 04:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and make this article about Linux-based OSes that don't include GNU (such as a few embedded systems and toy projects) and make "GNU/Linux" into an article about Linux-based OSes that do include GNU (such as the distros of Debian, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Novel, gNewSense, etc.)?  That is very worth considering actually. Gronky 04:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My opinion/prediction is that GNU/Linux will never become the main Linux-and-GNU-and-other-software-based-OS article for any length of time, so you may as well not bother pursuing that.  But I do think distinguishing between different types of Linux OS here is good (those with GNU and no other stuff, those without GNU but other stuff, those with GNU + other stuff).  Don't be so quick to dismiss embedded systems either---if even 10% of cellphones ran Linux they would still outnumber all Linux-and-GNU-and-other-stuff installations, and that doesn't seem entirely unlikely to me.  Chris Pickett 05:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (In other words: Agree) -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 23:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome by localzuk

message: I revoke my proposal. -- mms 10:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NCON#Resolving disputed names within articles supports my request if you agree, that "Linux" is a variant of GNU. I have already read this text and found little to defend my request. But I think these guidelines aren't universal. They are written as an outcome of disputes. And I think this dispute isn't already incorporated into in the rationale of this guideline.  -- mms 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you think the WP:NCON policy should be changed, then you should discuss your concerns on the appropriate discussion page. Not here. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 22:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome by mms (withdrawn) 

message: GNU/Linux redirects to GNU/Linux naming controversy. In Linux article have only "Linux" in introduction, no undue weight and  advertisment for minority views. In GNU section we have the short explanation about RMS request to call the OS GNU/Linux and a link to  GNU/Linux naming controversy, that's I think is supported by WP:NCON as User:Sakurambo already pointed out. -- AdrianTM 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * The name is "Linux", GNU/Linux is a pure invention of Stallman to promote his ideas piggybacking on Linux success and now it's promoted by trolls here and in forums because people in general don't care about the issue trolls will probably have success in imposing this. -- AdrianTM 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * "The name is "Linux", GNU/Linux is a pure invention of Stallman [...]". Adrian, behave! :^) — Isilanes 10:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * it is mentioned, but not right in the description where it would be receive undue weight and advertising. -- AdrianTM 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree -- I kind of missed the flame war here (thankfully), but wasn't most of this settled on Talk:Linux (disambiguation)???  Nobody typing in GNU/Linux expects to read about the GNU/Linux naming controversy, and that's just going to annoy people.  Off-topic, I notice you call people trolls a lot, AdrianTM.  Perhaps it's more the case that they just have an alternative viewpoint.  70.53.42.233 03:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right about disambiguation, I only proposed it because this article might talk about systems that don't contain GNU at all, which doesn't make sense, it also doesn't make sense to limit the article artificially only to OSes that contain GNU code. As for "trolls" I only take the behaviour as it looks like, some people just ignore arguments and make the same arguements over and over even if they were refuted repetedly (not to mention in archive there's an entire discussion only about this issue), but you are right, I will cease calling them that.  -- AdrianTM 07:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As I mentioned in "Another outcome by 80.233.255.7" I changed my proposal about redirecting GNU/Linux directly to the name controversy article instead it needs a special dab page because people don't seem to agree what people expect to get when they type "GNU/Linux", so in my opinion it should redirect to a disambiguation page that contains:Linux, GNU variants or GNU, and GNU/Linux naming controversy   -- AdrianTM 15:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Outcome by AdrianTM (partially withdrawn)

message: Having read all the different opinions of people, I've changed my stance.
"Linux" is a name commonly used to refer to free Unix-like operating systems that use the Linux kernel.  There is some controversy with regards to whether the name is appropriate;  prominent figures within the free software community, such as Richard Stallman, suggest that a different name, namely GNU/Linux, be used instead.  In this article, however, the name "Linux" is used.
That's basically what I'd like to see in the intro.  (Of course, phrased in a different tone.  This is just an ugly draft by a non-native speaker.)  GNU/Linux would contain stuff from the controversy article, and would make it entirely clear that Wikipedia uses "Linux" for the sake of a more common name.  (The controversy article even starts with "GNU/Linux is".)  80.233.255.7 22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it possible to maintain neutrality without mentioning that the there is a disagreement?  Also, I didn't mean to say that this would be all that is said in the intro.  80.233.255.7 23:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The purpose of the lead section is to provide a brief summary of the entire article. Simply mentioning that it is known as "Linux" or "GNU/Linux" seems perfectly adequate, given that the controversy is discussed in a later paragraph with a link to a separate article. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcome by [[User:80.233.255.7|80.233.255.7]] (withdrawn) 

message: Building on an edit Chris Pickett made earlier today, I updated the lead sentence to read:
Linux (IPA pronunciation: /ˈlɪnʌks/, sometimes referred to as GNU/Linux) refers to any Unix-like computer operating system that uses the Linux kernel.
Mainly I did this so that the grammar of the sentence is still okay, while applying a fairly neutral representation of the GNU/Linux name early on -- while avoiding diving explicitly into the controversy from the get-go.  We don't need to do that right away.  We could mention it later in the lead section, giving it an appropriate weight compared to other super-important aspects of Linux: it's free and open-source, it's increasing in popularity, it's used in a wide variety of devices, etc. etc.  But let's be realistic here – all of those things are more important and interesting to the casual reader than a naming controversy.   -/- Warren 23:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to change it back, you're welcome to.  I don't claim to be an authority, as I have only first-year university English education, but I've published several peer-reviewed computer science technical articles in English and it's completely correct to say, "Foo, or bar, refers to...".  Perhaps though it's more clear to say, "Foo, also known as bar, refers to...", so go ahead and make that change if you like.    Or you could revert to your version, I'm not too miffed.  In general, in formal writing, it's better to avoid parentheses, elipses (...), and dashes (-, --, ---), if at all possible---save these for email and informal conversation.  Perhaps though the Wikipedia manual of style disagrees. Chris Pickett 23:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcome by Warrens 

message: Mostly I'm tired of seeing this bickering, I think you're all wasting hours and hours and hours of your lives.  So here's something that seems fairly neutral to me, but I might be wrong about that.
* GNU/Linux naming controversy actually gets moved to GNU/Linux.
* GNU Linux redirects to GNU/Linux.
* GNU Linux naming controversy redirects to GNU/Linux.
* At the top of GNU/Linux, explain what GNU/Linux is, according to the FSF (GNU OS plus a Linux kernel), and according to some others (Linux kernel with GNU packages).  While RMS can define any terms that he likes, others are just as free to offer alternate explanations for those same terms.
* Explain also that Wikipedia has adopted the convention of calling it Linux, in very clear terms.  (Apparently this goes against WP:ASR, but it can go on both talk pages.)
* Instead of going on and on about the name in Linux, describe under what conditions it may be called GNU/Linux, and be dry and technical about it.  
* In a section on system composition, describe those systems that are explicitly not GNU/Linux, since I think that is interesting.
* Change the topic sentence of Linux to read: "Linux (pronunciation:...) refers to any Unix-like operating system that uses the Linux kernel.  These operating systems may be known as GNU/Linux when they include GNU packages." (Similar to what Warrens has below.)
I don't think that's factually incorrect, and I don't think it's particularly unfair to anybody either.  Chris Pickett 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: *not really interested -- I've little interest in the explanation of the naming controversy, so I don't really have much of a comment on most of this statement.  What I would like to say is that this really isn't a "waste" of our time... this is truly a hard thing to nail down accurately.  Perhaps not as hard as the lead section of Jesus, which has generated vast amounts of discussion over the years, but has resulted in a beautifully-crafted piece of text.  Hopefully it won't take us as much work to sort this out :-) but it can be done.   -/- Warren 08:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first reactions 

message: *Against Agree only if GNU/Linux content is restricted to controversy issue, otherwise see my explanations about what is going to happen: if we have both GNU/Linux and Linux articles it would only move the name fight from this page to the thousands of pages that talk about Linux, then you'll see guerilla fights all over the Wikipedia with changing links back and forth from "Linux" to "GNU/Linux". Maybe I'm just paranoid. It also smells like a POV fork. "Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies." WP:POV_fork -- AdrianTM 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should GNU/Linux be about (part 1) 

message: Here's a second idea:
Linux (IPA pronunciation: /ˈlɪnʌks/) is an umbrella term that refers to Unix-like computer operating systems that are built on the Linux kernel.  A Linux-based system used in conjunction with GNU system utilities and libraries is sometimes referred to as GNU/Linux.
Again, I'm trying to avoid being explicit about the controversy in the lead paragraph by using the phrase "sometimes referred to as".  I'm also trying to make it a bit more clear that GNU/Linux is a term derived from it being used in conjunction with GNU stuff.  Further, I have provided a reference to the well-known Linux System Administrator's Guide, which characterises the debate but doesn't take a stance on the subject (like what we're trying to do)... turns out they use the phrase "sometimes referred to as GNU/Linux" which I'm fond of.
Is this an improvement?   -/- Warren 07:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second outcome by Warrens 

message: Realizing that Linux is a trademarked term maybe it would be more appropriate to place the content in this page to Linux distributions. I don't think it's OK to use the term "Linux" in general (especially when there is no consensus about what it represents) when it can actually be used only to designate "Linux distributions": meaning distributions that are allowed by Linux Mark Institute to use the term "Linux". Also, I think there's a not-needed duplication, can you bring any reasons why we need two separate "Linux" and "Linux distributions" pages? (initially I considered that they should not be merged because I considered that even a self-build (non-distribution) system using Linux kernel could be called "Linux", but now I think this is a marginal case and might not even be true because of the trademark issue) So, what do you think about this idea (of course "Linux" would redirect to Linux distributions). So, merge or not merge?-- AdrianTM 19:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be scared shitless because of the trademark. Trademark is much less powerful than you can imagine. We can write about whatever trademarked product we want. We are even allowed to describe trademark itself. And you are allowed to build a Linux-based system of your own and call it Linux. Trademark can't be applied as long as you do not trade. -- mms 01:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not scared, but whatever what about merging "Linux" into "Linux distributions"? -- AdrianTM 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Mostly agree -- I think that's something worth considering;  both articles seem to focus on the same subject.    I think encyclopedias generally don't have issues with the use of trademarks, though.  80.233.255.7 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not "using a trademark in encyclopedia", that's not a problem under Fair_use_(US_trademark_law), the problem is if an encyclopedia or actually anybody uses a trademark in an incorrect manner. If an encyclopedia uses a trademarked term in a generic manner my understanding is that the owners of the trademark if they want to keep it as a trademark have to take legal action in order to protect the trademark: Genericized_trademark#Avoiding_genericide So my guess (obviously I'm not a lawyer) is that "Linux" applied to kernel is fine, "Linux" when applied to "Linux distributions" (that are allowed to use Linux in their name) might be fine, while just using "Linux" in general for "any operating system that uses the code of Linux kernel" might not be OK. But I might be wrong, if you consider that I'm wrong in this aspect just ignore this reason, consider though that Linux and Linux distributions are basically talking about the same thing. -- AdrianTM 02:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second proposal by AdrianTM 

message: #Summation of the counter-GNU argument. Chris Cunningham 14:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also