Talk:Linux/Archive 5

message: This article has some really good sections and certainly has sufficient content to make it a good article. But at times the article suffers from a wandering focus and poor writing. 
One example of poor writing is the statement "but it is commonly used to describe entire Unix-like operating systems (also known as GNU/Linux) that are based on the Linux kernel combined with libraries and tools from the GNU Project and other sources". A better phrasing may be "but it is commonly used to describe entire operating systems based on the Linux kernel" and leaving the GNU/Linux discussion to a new sentence. 
As for the wandering focus, the article has sections dedicated to "Running Windows applications", "Configuration", "Demonstration", "Development efforts", "Installation", etc. All of these things can be mentioned but often they are talked about in far too much detail when a passing mention (or link to a subpage) would be more than sufficient. The article needs to focus on the main points of Linux.
Cedars 00:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed good article

message: This article does not require every single mention of graphical interfaces to be accompanied with a disclaimer that they are based on X. It does not need random commentary on other GNU kernels. It does not need every paragraph to have three sets of parentheses containing edge cases or random qualifiers in order to satisfy the anonymous user current skulking around various contentious Unix pages and getting into holy wars about KDE or *BSD or whether the shiny Tux is nicer than "Tux Classic". It does not need links to anime schoolgirls. it does not need the disclaimer "nearly all" to every mention of GNU until someone comes up with a single instance of a Linux distro which doesn't contain any GNU libraries. I intend to keep reducing this pointless fluff until such point as reading over it aloud no longer induces oxygen deprivation.
The first half of this article is fine. The second is in need of destruction. I really reckon that comparisons to other operating systems, installation, GNOME / KDE discussion and so on should be shifted elsewhere. This page isn't meant to be the single canonical resource for GNU/Linux information on the entire internet; if people can follow a link to this article, they can follow a link to the bits they're interested in as well. Objective comparisons are so not Wikipedia's strongpoint anyway. Thumper 12:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with you, but the nature of WP is that the changes will probably need to be made incrementally.  Let's start hacking. -- Gnetwerker 16:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing redundancy and sensibly splitting this 

message: I'm a complete anon nub who is too shy to get a user account, but just looking at the article maybe we should...
*See Also cleanup. Formatting is shoddy in IE, and do we even need ALL the Wikibooks entries with Sisterlinks? 
*Turn "Running Windows applications" into a section for Mac and other OS's as well? Possibly subbing under Applications?
*Remove the Anaconda reference in installation or mention other install packages?
*Get a English major in here to clean up all the grammatical errors? (Hey look, I made a joke!)
*Generalize categories more, such as "Market Share" into "Range of Use" (Horrible term too, I know)
*Expand the Support section? 
*Expand development of Linux to include programming on Linux?
*NPOV issues with GNU/Linux and the SCO lawsuit?
*Get a bit less agressive with rv and the comments?
~Avillia Ealitian. (With less anon!)
That guy who is too lazy to find other relavant conversation's and rather wishes to make his own.
Avillia 20:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then someone needs to Be Bold and start moving stuff around. I wish people would contribute to this instead of reverting every second edit. Chris Cunningham 23:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redesign/Cleanup? 

message: The Configuration section is pointless. Linux is noted as being Unixish and things which don't differ much from Unix shouldn't need to be noted again. The discussion in this section is largely about different distros. It's best kept entirely to the distros section. Chris Cunningham 23:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step 1: remove info which belongs elsewhere 

message: I'm moving this to the bottom of the article and trimming the references as it's an article fragment. Even if the case does eventually have repercussions it's currently little more than trivia. Chris Cunningham 23:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step 2: SCO 

message: I think that the desktops should also indicate the license ie: BSD is for KDE and GPL is for GNOME, as this is a major reason for supporting one over the other.
:KDE uses GPL license. "As of September 4, 2000, version 2.2 of the Qt™ libraries were licensed under the GPL, thereby fulfiling all aspects of “free software”." from KDE FAQ AdrianTM 05:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admire your being WP:BOLD, but saying "Don't revert" is like waving a red flag.  -- Gnetwerker 00:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was more of a plea for sanity given the last few days than an attempt to impose myself. Sorry. Chris Cunningham 01:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step 3: Desktop comparisons 

message: The word "Linux" is used in this article to mean one thing: "The operating system which is formed from the Linux kernel when combined with programs and libraries from the GNU project and elsewhere". The only explanation required is a quick explanation of what the word "Linux" means in this article, and only reason the paragraph is needed at all is because of Furious Rage from the gnu-or-not camps who can't see past the label.
It is being removed because I would be embarrassed to have handed the current article in as English homework at school, not for ideological reasons. There's a whole article devoted to the naming controversy, so even giving the issue lip service here is being generous. The amount of time spent bickering over something is very rarely directly proportional to its importance anyway, see "Shiny Tux".
I would respectfully suggest that the longer version be added to the naming article or Wiktionary, where it belongs. Chris Cunningham 19:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory text and pointless, petty nitpicking for nitpicking's sake 

message: if any of that disambig fluff comes back because the page title is ambiguous I'm going to scream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumperward (talk • contribs) 
::Made pathetic attempt at sig forgery in line with history. --Avillia 00:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the page back 

message: Right, first half looks much better than it used to. It's concise, fluid and informative. I wish the same could be said for the second half. It reads like a fan article. I'm tempted to axe the whole running-Windows-apps section and move it into its own article with a minor link from somewhere, but where? What direction should the second half take? It has to be focussed on Linux the operating system without rambling on about GNOME and KDE or making unsubstantiated claims about market share. Chris Cunningham 23:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the second half of this article needs some serious work/cleanup. As for the running-Windows-apps I'd reccommend probably just making a new article for that and just note it in see also (make sure there isn't one already though :)). I mean, right now there are 15 sections - that is A LOT of sections for a article. "Portability of Linux" should probably be moved to the kernel article as right now it is slightly confusing (why is the operating system more or less portable then the kernel?). The programming section probably should be culled or at least cleaned up to make it obvious why it is more relevant then say, spreadsheets on linux, as right now it is awfully generic - I mean you could say basically ALL that stuff about unix in general - if you were talking about kernel programming it would make more sense, but then it would probably need to go in the kernel article... lots of other stuff that needs work too... I'll try to help out as well when I can :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 06:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New article Running Windows applications on Linux. Not linked from here yet, although I don't know if it needs to be. I've started by simply killing off large chunks of the second section which were mostly advocacy. Chris Cunningham 16:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've really attacked the installation section now. The pondering phrasage is mostly gone and it's a sensible length. Chris Cunningham 16:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding "Portability of Linux", I think it is notable that linux runs on many different  architectures. That's not just a matter of the kernel, as the userland etc generally had to be, or was ported as well, as mentioned in the section. Maybe a better title would be "Supported computer platforms" or something like that? Zarniwoot 21:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do we go from here? 

message: "Linux" is the kernel
"GNU/Linux" is the whole system
see : http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html—Preceding unsigned comment added by mtmtmt (talk • contribs) 
:Please stop dragging up the same old arguments again and again. This has been discussed to death already. The naming conventions call for the common usage to be used - the common usage, no matter how wrong you think it is, is Linux. Plain and simple.-Localzuk (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with mtmtmt: "Linux" is only the kernel. We should refer to GNU/Linux. I believe that we should move this page to GNU/Linux and create a redirect from Linux to the newly moved page. And, as far as I can tell, yes, the common usage is to call it "Linux", but it's a wrong usage. I really believe we should pursue correctness in our articles, not popularity. --Hanska 23:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly. The FSF has no more _right_ to pronounce GNU/Linux the canonical name than it does to rename Warcraft III because it includes FreeType. 192.18.1.9 11:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GNU/Linux

message: I reverted a change of Linus Torvalds from "creator" to "initial author" of the Linux kernel (in a picture caption).
My argument: Linus created version 0.09 of the Linux kernel *alone*. Before others started helping, he created something that was usable. That's a creator in my eyes. An "initial author" would be one who started the project, but needed help before it could be used for anything.
At the moment, he's more of a team lead and coordinator. But I think he deserves the "creator" title. --Alvestrand 07:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, albeit creator and architect might be an even more accurate title (because it represents well his continuing status in the kernel development). Coren 16:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linus - creator or initial author? 

message: User:fdp keeps removing the Unix history image. I think it helps explain the history and background of linux. It's true that you can't read the text in the thumbnail, but that is no different from many other diagrams like todays featured picture. Keep/remove? Zarniwoot 22:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this diagram is very relevant to Linux itself, and so should be removed. Also note that, in the featured picture you mention, one can see the panorama of the mountains, just not the text, whereas in this diagram one can't see anything useful, just nondescript lines. - Centrx 05:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the diagram is useful to show what UNIX world is all about and where Linux comes in the picture. If you click on the image you can see the details -- people who use a computer and a browser usually know to do that. AdrianTM 15:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unix history image 

message: Hey all. Does anyone know if there's a higher quality version (higher than the one at the top of this article) of Tux is available somewhere? The thing is that this version doesn't seem to have anti-aliased edges, which is kind of a shame. We can remedy this by either providing a much larger version of the image, or I could manually add anti-aliasing to its edges, in case the license allows this (does it?) —Michiel Sikma, 13:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you could work from the Postscript scaleable vector file at . That would be great. Haakon 13:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tux image 

message: I'm interested in getting linux on my laptop. I'm a pretty low end user, I program as a hobby (although I suck), and I like to surf the net. I'm using a Sony Vaio PCG-5312. What distro should I get? Thanks for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.76.216.234 (talk • contribs) 13:45, May 17, 2006.
:Try Fedora core 5 --Actown e 00:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to Distrowatch.com and try the top distros, I'd recommand to try first 5 or even first 10 -- just to be fair :-) It's also a fun thing to do (especially that many are LiveCDs that you don't need to install unless you want). AdrianTM 02:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The big problem is wireless - even fedora core 5 doesn't support most of the wireless cards from the past year or so. Fedora is one of the more popular ones - Ubuntu is populer as well but it is rather targeted when it comes to notebooks. Google for ndiswrapper as that is supposed to help you with the wireless stuff. Video is often the other problem (due to ati/nvidia stuff). Also, if you are using Fedora and want access to your windows NTFS drives don't forget to install kmod-ntfs. It is as it always was T | @ | C 02:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux on a laptop?