Talk:Linux/Archive 15

message: Ok, this is something I've wanted to say for a long time.  I really like the French page.  It's balanced, it tells the history pretty well, and it doesn't conflate distribution with usage.  Maybe what would be really good is for en.Linux to become a sister/twin flags/whatever page with fr.Linux.  (I don't know how this is done, but I've seen a template being used before to indicate that two language versions are supposed to be synchronous.)  It really helps that the French page is a featured article.  I don't know if it's useful, but I found this: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Echo with minimal searching.  If the French page was used as a model for the Linux page, and the French Linux distribution page used as a model for the Linux distribution page, I would be happy with it.  Chris Pickett 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by sufficiently? It seems like its pretty obvious that they're not the same.Mike92591 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no point in making english articles mirrors of french articles. If they have structured some particular articles in an interesting way, then you should be proposing that we do that too and include an explanation of that structuring. --MarSch 12:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, an exact mirror would delete content here.  So how about a merge of structure and content on the French page that isn't here.  Remember, it's a FA, and it would be a quick way to bring this article to FA status IMO.  FA status seems like a pretty good goal.  Chris Pickett 18:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FA status does not mean the same thing across all wikis. Missing content should of course be added here. Please articulate what structure you see the French page as having that we don't. --MarSch 10:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi MarSch.  Rather than spend a lot of time articulating, I'm just going to translate missing bits slowly and add them to the main page.  You can review my edits there.  You can also click on the French page, and even if you can't read French it's pretty clear just from the section headings how it's different from the English page.  How about I ask you: is there anything on the French page that you would not like to see here?  Chris Pickett 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already said I am in favour of including missing information, so please go ahead.--MarSch 11:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Proposal: Make Linux a mirror (or rather, ''superset'') of the French version? 

message: Nevertheless, English speakers tend to pronounce the name as [ˈlɪnʊks] or [ˈlɪnəks].
::I have deleted the following line as it was unsourced. I heard it being said that way, but could anyone find a source.
Thanks, Freedom to share 17:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I reverted you.  It's useful to have alternate pronunciations, it wasn't false information.  Nobody I know says it like Linus does.  Chris Pickett 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Freedom to share was just asking for a source, not saying it's false information.  80.233.255.7 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend.  I thought I was asking for source by putting , but that tag hasn't been up nearly long enough for someone to find or create one.  I mean, I could record 10 different English speakers saying Linux, or more even, but it will take a while.  I think if the sentence gets deleted, it will just get forgotten about.  It's pretty benign, IMO.  Chris Pickett 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, no offence taken, really.  It's just that removing a statement without a source backing it seems quite reasonable to me, so it looks kind of ugly when somebody reverts such an edit yet doesn't provide the source.  I'm not actively watching the article, though, so if there really was a recent citation needed template, then I don't see a problem with keeping the statement.  (Generally, it should have been there for a week or two before removal.)  80.233.255.7 00:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, what happened was, it didn't have the CN template, so FTS removed it, I added it back with the template (since I agree, it should be sourced), and then about a day later it got deleted again, and I reverted that since the template was there.  Just a misunderstanding somewhere I think.  Chris Pickett 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough.  No problem then.  80.233.255.7 01:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, first of all, I think you're taking this a bit too seriously.  Lighten up, this is supposed to be fun! :)  Second, did you try googling "linux pronunciation" and sorting through the results?  It's clear to me that plenty of people pronounce it differently, even if it's not Linus' "official" pronunciation.  Can you find a page there that you would accept as a citable source?  Chris Pickett 11:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shouldn't we be looking for "[ˈlɪnʊks]" or "[ˈlɪnəks]" and not "Linux pronunciation"?  80.233.255.7 13:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I already found the reference. Thanks for your help. Freedom to share 15:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found the same site while googling, however, I don't think it mentions either of the two IPA pronunciations.  80.233.255.7 16:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't read/edit IPA very well in my browser, but I think you're right 80.233.255.7.  I do know that I've heard Lin-ecks and Lin-icks frequently, and that I tend to say Lin-icks, as do my friends/colleagues.  Please can you add the two new pronunciations and leave the  tag up for the original ones?  Cheers, Chris Pickett 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never mind, I did it myself.  Please check that it looks okay.  (I hate font configuration.)  Linus' pronunciations in IPA form in Swedish and English are actually given by the new ref [15].  Chris Pickett 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking good.  A little heavy on parenthesis, though.  The issue you're having is likely one with encodings and not fonts.  Make sure you're using UTF-8.  (The "View" menu in most browsers.)  80.233.255.7 21:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's Firefox 1.5 on a Mac using their Optima font and set to UTF-8.  I tried switching to several different fonts and it didn't make a difference.  I guess I could upgrade to 2.0.  The specific problem is that there are all these question marks ? for anything written in IPA... I can see some of the proper characters but not all of them.  I think it has to do with the accents.  Back on topic, I noticed that there appears to be yet a 6th pronunciation of Linux written out in the opening line at the top of the page.  Translating Linus' audio file into IPA may be non-trivial!  Chris Pickett 21:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi.  If you look at the "tagging unsourced material" subsection of the link provided by the tag: , it indicates the tag is appropriate if the information is not harmful.  I didn't consider the information to be harmful in this instance.  Certainly if it was obviously wild speculation, that's one thing, but actually I think it's correct and also just useful to know.  Remember, we're talking about pronunciation of a word here.  I'd actually prefer to have this discussion on the Talk:Linux page.  Chris Pickett 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Linus said some things about the pronounciation of Linux. Let's have those and any other thing that can be referenced. --MarSch 12:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think http://www.paul.sladen.org/pronunciation/torvalds-says-linux.wav would be great to have. --MarSch 12:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Chris Pickett 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: (Freedom to share posted this on my user page, I'm moving it here.... I don't really know best how to answer)
Dear Mr. Pickett,
I have seen that you have reverted my edit in which I removed the uncited info about the pronunciation of Linux by English speakers. I strongly believe that any information without a source should be deleted immediately and aggressively and not be classified as {cn}. I would like to stress the following quotation by Jimmy Wales to support this argument.
<I>I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is
better to have no information, than to have information like this, with
no sources.  Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it
back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient
of a barnstar.
</I>
Please note that I am not trying to start an argument or a fight. I am not sure if I am doing the right thing and it would be great if we could reach consensus on that issue. Neither am I asking for a barnstar. :-) All I want to do is to find out what would be the right thing to do from a Wikipedian's point of view. You may contact me by email if you wish to discuss this matter personally or on my user page.
Sincerely,
Freedom to share 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  If you look at the "tagging unsourced material" subsection of the link provided by the tag: , it indicates the tag is appropriate if the information is not harmful.  I didn't consider the information to be harmful in this instance.  Certainly if it was obviously wild speculation, that's one thing, but actually I think it's correct and also just useful to know.  Remember, we're talking about pronunciation of a word here.  I'd actually prefer to have this discussion on the Talk:Linux page.  Chris Pickett 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Linus said some things about the pronounciation of Linux. Let's have those and any other thing that can be referenced. --MarSch 12:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think http://www.paul.sladen.org/pronunciation/torvalds-says-linux.wav would be great to have. --MarSch 12:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Chris Pickett 22:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing sources 

message: The second paragraph mischaracterises the initial developers as "individual enthusiasts", and says nothing more about them.  Most of the initial developers were working for the GNU project to make a free software OS exist.  This seems important and there's no reason to gloss over it, but given recent debates about the three letter word, I thought I should ask here first if there are objections to adding a few words on this. Gronky 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn. Be Bold. "Discussing this" (i.e. having the same argument again for the fiftieth time in a year) on the talk page isn't going to improve the article. You haven't even suggested an alternative phrasing to discuss. Chris Cunningham 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a few weeks late to this, but I'm removing most of this change.  Why?  Look at the facts:  Linux didn't start in the 1980s -- Linus Torvalds himself will tell you that.  GNU != Linux -- you can use the GNU tools on non-Linux systems (Mac OS X and Windows Vista, e.g.).  Linux != GNU -- you can use the Linux kernel in embedded environments and build your own userland from scratch, if you like.  Also, X Window System and TeX have nothing to do with Linux or GNU... they are cross-platform applications.   -/- Warren 08:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initially worked on by ??? 

message: FSF have said that GPLv3 was motivated by software patents, DMCA, and EUCD.  This article currently says that GPLv3 was motivated by "intellectual proprety laws" - but that overgeneralises to the point of no longer being accurate.  If generality is our aim, lets replace "intellectual property laws" with "law".  If accuracy is our aim, lets say what we're talking about (when it wouldn't take too long).  So I'll remove the over-generalisation again, now that I've explained my reasoning for this small change. Gronky 21:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go right ahead.  I don't think FSF has any issues with, say, trademark laws.  (Reportedly a part of "intellectual property laws.")  80.233.255.7 21:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In EU directives, "intellectual property" covers eleven different laws including "design schematics", "plant variations", and "geographic designations" (such as "Champagne"), and FSF definitely has no issue with those laws with regards to software. Gronky 22:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  gplv3 and intellectual property 

message: I recently noted in the article that GPLv3 was motivate by, among other things, "tivoisation".  This change was reverted with a mention of "neologism" in the edit summary.  I agree that it can be argued that "tivoisation" is a neologism.  So I guess it would be ok if I said that GPLv3 was motivated by TiVo's use of DRM, and then link those words to the article that Wikipedia has on TiVo's use of DRM.  (The name of that wikipedia article is "tivoisation", but I won't use that name in this article because it's debateably a neologism). Gronky 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is an article called tivoisation then I think it would be best to use that term.--MarSch 12:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Better yet, use a formal description and add a "also known as tivoisation" with a link to that article.  80.233.255.7 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I really don't see why a link is required, given that GPL3 is essentially irrelevant to the article (because it's an unfinished licence that the kernel is never going to use). I don't feel it's worth padding this article over. Chris Cunningham 12:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tivoisation as a neologism 

message: The french version of this page refers to the kernel as being a "Modular Monolithic Kernel", whereas the english version calls it a monolithic kernel. Which is most correct? (Does en.wiki have an equivalent Mod/Mono spec?) Emyr42 23:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are correct, but the French is more accurate, as the kernel does have a strongly modular design. (although this wasn't always the case) —Pengo 12:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kernel Type

message: * I deleted the following, because I think is flawed logic:
Linux is an operating system underdog competing with mainstream operating systems.  Accordingly, Linux and the free software that comprises it must support interoperability.
As far as I can see, Linux does not work towards interoperability or supports standards because it is an underdog. It does so because of its philosophy. As free software, it is hard to see why it would dismiss interoperability even if it had a 99% market share. It is proprietary software makers who abhor interoperability, because it makes monopolization more difficult. — Isilanes 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are two reasons why interoperability is important.  1) money: commercial vendors are certainly interested in interoperability, and this was the basis for the underdog sentence.  2) free software philosophy says you should have the freedom to run whatever software you want on whatever hardware you want and not be hindered by needless limitations.  I put the sentence there primarily because the subsection needs opening somehow.  If you want to write something better that takes both views into account, I would be much obliged---I happen to agree with both views, and thank-you for bringing this up, it will make it more neutral.  Cheers, Chris Pickett 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interoperability 

message: It is extremely important for everyone to come to the realization that Linux is simply an operating system kernel, and that GNU is the culmination of many free userland utilities.  GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux are the most correct forms of referring to the whole operating system that utilizes the userland GNU and kernel Linux.
We have mutually buttressed evidence and reason to call it GNU/Linux.  With that in mind, I am sure you have heard the arguments, and probably conjured some retorts.
But, it is in the best interest of an encyclopedia (and a free encyclopedia, at that!) to create a clear disctinction between:
*The complete operating system (GNU/Linux)
*The kernel in question (Linux), and
*The userland tools (GNU)
Making a clear disctinction between the three is the most clear way of thinking about them.
The phrase "GNU/Linux" is the most technically accurate method to name the operating system.
In conclusion, I propose a massive rewrite - creation of the articles
*GNU/Linux (A holistic entry concerning the entire system.  GNU+Linux might redirect here, perhaps.)
*Linux (An entry about the kernel itself -- nothing more, nothing less.)
*GNU (An entry about the userland utilities and possibly philosophical implications, etc.)
You may come to me, saying, "Wikipedia is all about NPOV information".  This I totally understand.  In respect to that, an encyclopedia should seek to be the most accurate source of information.  Calling the operating system "GNU/Linux" is the most technically accurate term, and it should be known as such.
I will assist in the writing process.  Any takers? Dkrogers 23:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Dkrogers.  Respectfully, I would ask that first you read all of the talk archives available in the top right-hand box.  If you want to make balanced and accurate summaries as you go, I think that would be extremely beneficial.  Cheers, Chris Pickett 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S.  I do still think that the GNU/Linux page is the right place to discuss these issues re: naming, and should be done by moving GNU/Linux naming controversy there.  It seems to benefit everybody involved.  However, there is still work on this page that can be done, and so that is the focus of my attention for now.
You misunderstand, Linux was the name given to the operating system since it was uploaded. GNU is the name given to the operating system the GNU Project was trying to make since it was announced. GNU/Linux is the alternative name given to Linux because a bunch of people were pissed because they didn't get the recognition that they believe they deserved. IMHO they do deserve more recognition but linux isn't an incorrect name for the operating system. Mike92591 22:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something must be done.  Dkrogers 17:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The GNU/Linux naming controversy is acknowledged in "The Linux name", and "GNU/Linux" is in the second sentence.  Did you read the archives? Chris Pickett 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have read the archives in the past.  Dkrogers 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A call for clear distinctions!