Talk:Linux/Archive 17

message: I added this sentence to the intro, just after the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph:
:"The GNU project had been working on the GNU operating system since 1983. Linux systems incorporated GNU, the Linux kernel, and other third-party packages such as X Window System and TeX."
But is has been reverted with the edit summary: "discussion of GNU components is nitpicking".
I thought it was quite a fair wording.  If discussion of GNU is nitpicking, then discussion of Linux is worse nitpicking since it's a smaller, newer contribution.  The people who actually wrote the OS should be mentioned, especially if Sun, HP, IBM, and Novell are to be mentioned for just supporting of the OS after it was written. What do others think of the sentence I added? Gronky 14:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GNU already gets a whole sentence in the intro.  Why do you need to go through the history?  Too much weight on GNU for the amount it's discussed in the article.  74.15.52.236 14:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's pointless. Linux only "relied" on GNU insofar as GNU components such as GCC and Emacs helped to create it. Individual parts of GNU were cloned from existing Unixes anyway, so those parts could have been taken from other areas. Linux is not defined by GNU, it simply includes large portions of it for the mutual benefit of both projects. Most all free software projects make use of GNU code in this way, but you don't go around saying "development of Inkscape started in 1983 with the GNU project..." Chris Cunningham 14:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I gave the intro yet another stab. It actually appears to have worked out pretty nicely. Chris Cunningham 14:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not true for the complete GNU/Linux operating system (or "Linux" as this article calls it as it's the most popular name for it), made from combining the kernel, Linux, and many of the programmes from the GNU operating system. See this page for more on this. What you've written, "Linux only "relied" on GNU insofar as GNU components such as GCC and Emacs helped to create it", is only true for the kernel. Guyjohnston 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion of GNU components is nitpicking (?!) 

message: * 
* 
* 
* 
* 
Chris Cunningham 21:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What sections of the article do these pertain to? Thanks. --Michelleem 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what we're trying to find out :) They were originally dumped in the References section without accompanying <ref> tags in the article. It may be that no text currently in the article makes use of these reference sources, so I've removed them for now and placed them here for the editing community to try to match with statements. Chris Cunningham 15:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-cited references 

message: I still don't like the laundry list, but I trust the editing style was easier to pick through this time. Chris Cunningham 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was much easier to follow.  Thanks.  I'm actually going to try and stop editing completely (without a silly banner on my user page reminding me of that fact) because I have software and papers and finally a thesis to write that are much more pressing needs in my life than editing Wikipedia.  But have fun with this article!  (I guess that means you won't have me reverting you.)  I think in terms of breadth it's quite close to FA status, but in terms of length some parts definitely need to be diverted elsewhere.  Cheers, Chris Pickett 22:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To everyone else: where do we go from here?  I suggest abandoning the above discussion in the "Reordering (again)" section - it's just impossible to see where the latest comments are and it's even hard to find the bit you want to reply to when in the edit box.  What do we think of starting a new sections, and maybe slowing down the pace, at least until Monday.  Thoughts? Gronky 22:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, whatever about the rest of yous, I'm going to stop editing for tonight, and I'll try to take it easy or not edit this article at all for the weekend too.  But I'll be back, fresh, on Monday, so don't get carried away :-) Gronky 23:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro reorganised 

message: None of the external links for Linux provide straightforward downloads for the current x86 version of the operating system.  Will somebody provide a link to a downloadable disk image of Linux on them so I can try out the operating system on a virtualization suite or dump onto a LiveDistro, because I don't want links to source downloads. --PlayStation 69 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.linux.org/dist/ ¦ Reisio 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straightforward download links 

message: Given that the allegations aren't true, there's scant evidence, and nobody notable has made the accusation, is this section really necessary? We're already pushing on for space here without going off on contentious tangents. Chris Cunningham 10:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is currently completely incoherent. I'd be glad to get rid of it. I haven't yet done that, because I think it might be useful to mention Minix as a source of inspiration or whatever it was. I don't think I've read anything about it in the rest of the article, apart from the pronounciation quote. --MarSch 10:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added as a single edit by an anonymous user. I think it was parachuted in from somewhere else. --Alvestrand 00:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minix section 

message: Are there any criticisms of Linux or is it perfect? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.186.52.155 (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Linux is perfect. But leaving this aside having "Criticisms" section in any article is brain-dead, positive and negative issues should be listed organic inside the article where they have a meaning and in the sections they belong, not in a separate POV and troll attracting section. -- AdrianTM 03:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Lots of sources cite Linux as being providing as good a desktop environment as Windows, but a possibly equal amount don't, which is an omitted fact. The Linux desktop may be better, but saying this doesn't conform to NPOV.
:Do you have a source for your claim that "a possibly equal amount don't"? Without a reliable source, your claim is merely your opinion and as such is inadmissible here. --FOo 05:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  As expected NPOV vs Windows 

message: The section on comparison with windows isn't very good. Unfortunately the main article it links to isn't much better. Therefore I think the section should be removed. --MarSch 18:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. The current article is a complete mess, and has been for months. Chris Cunningham 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comparison with windows 

message: We're recording Linux article for "Spoken Wikipedia." Anyone willing to help me with pronounciations of some words? If so, please reply on my talk page. 
Thank you. 
DollieLlama 02:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken Wikipedia Version 

message: Why is there criticism columns for OS X, but not for linux (or infact Windows)? Is an encyclopedia the place to voice these criticisms? I can't see how their inclusion makes the facts about an operating system any different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.28.210 (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look through the history of this article and the methods which we are trying to use in order to keep the article neutral and of a high quality. However, there is a Criticism of Linux article which is currently under discussion due to mine and some other users beliefs that it and other 'criticism of' articles are not neutral.-Localzuk(talk) 14:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism