Talk:Linux/Archive 14

message: Hello,
I'm about your "revert" editing (13 December 2006) for the Linux Documentation eLibrary on the Linux page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/linux
Fultus Technical Documentation eLibrary - Linux
http://elibrary.ful[breaklink]tus.com/linux/
Please explain WHY? you named our trustable and valuable FREE resource as SPAM? 
Each day THOUSANDS of people using this resource, THOUSANDS links from web sites, discussion forums and so on...
Please Use Google search
http://www.google.com/search?q=elibrary+fultus
Is it SPAM? Please explain.
-Oleg Vyushin
ovv(at)fultus.com
(unsigned by User:Fultus)
: The link you provided was a mirror of The Linux Documentation Project, which was already included as different link.  It doesn't help that you work for Fultus.  SPAM means "self promotion and marketing".  Chris Pickett 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fultus spam 

message: I don't know exactly who is the original creator of Linux, but I get the information from this link: http://www.linux.org/info/linus.html
::::::http://www.linux.org/info/ (unsigned by User:MrFirewall)
: He wrote the kernel, not the operating system.  Chris Pickett 19:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux 

message: The intro of the article could have been written by Stallman. The article lacks the quite interesting facts of how the kernel ended up for free modification. BTW, where is Alan Cox? How does Stallman end up being more interesting person, with photo and everything than Cox, who truly is a man to mention when we are discussing Linux, not GNU? I read this article a while ago, and if I remember correctly, it had more to do with Linux. 
Has Stallman edited the page?
User:geminga
:Stallman hasn't edited it recently, if ever.  The article for "Linux not GNU" is at: Linux kernel.  Cox is mentioned there.  I won't comment further, the discussion lower down explains the issue of GNU being mentioned or not in previous versions. Gronky 18:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Cox is barely mentioned on Linux kernel.  Maybe you could improve that. Gronky 18:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hysterical that there is a picture of Stallman before Torvalds in this article. Grouse 11:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stallman worked on this OS for eight years before Torvalds did anything.  Some people don't know that, but Wikipedia must reflect fact, not common misconceptions. Gronky 12:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quality of the article has degenerated fast 

message: The history section contains this line:
:"Linux vendors combine and distribute the kernel, GNU components, and non-GNU components with additional package management software in the form of Linux distributions."
I wouldn't call community projects like Debian or Gentoo or numerous others, Linux vendors. Perhaps someone can come up with a better term? --MarSch 11:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vendor is the correct term. Community-based distributions refer to themselves as vendors on occasion. Chris Cunningham 12:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  linux vendor 

message: I've moved the rest of the terminology debate to the most recent archive page. It's getting in the way of constructive commentary on the actual editing of the page. If there are individual proposals for renaming / merging / moving work they should be brought up as action proposals, not just talked around forever on huge threads. Chris Cunningham 12:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, this Talk page is being archived a little too freqeuntly.  If explanations of changes keep getting filed away, the same debates will keep recurring, IMO. Gronky 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't really like how the discussion disappears either.  I think any archiver should take the time to provide a summary of the discussion first.  Chris Pickett 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: This is pretty minor, but who chose the games included as "Prominent examples of open source games"? Battle for Wesnoth certainly makes sense, but the other two don't seem like very good examples, as they're interest is too far removed from the mainstream gaming interest, and Ur-Quan Masters doesn't seem that prominent at all. Instead, I'd consider games such as Nexuiz, Vega Strike, PlaneShift, Glest, FlightGear, Sauerbraten (game), Warzone 2100, or even Frets On Fire or StepMania just to name a few (Sauerbraten and PlaneShift's content might not be under a free license, so I'm not sure if they'd qualify). michaelb Talk to this user 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was me.  I guess you haven't really heard of NetHack or Star Control 2 (a.k.a. The Ur-Quan Masters).  I see where you might be coming from: I actually haven't heard of any of the games you've listed.  NetHack and UQM (i.e. Star Control 2) do feature in published best-game-ever articles that aren't just on some guy's blog (for example, NetHack at Salon.com, Star Control 2 at Gamespot).  Just Google them, or read the actual Wikipedia articles, you'll see what I mean.  NetHack has been developed as open source for 20+ years and was the inspiration for the "mainstream" Diablo, whereas Star Control 2 was a "mainstream" success in 1992 that got open-sourced and reborn as UQM some 10 years later.  Actually, if I was going to claim one of those three games as less well-known than the others, it would be Battle for Wesnoth.  Chris Pickett 08:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have actually played both games mentioned and enjoyed them immensely, although I prefer the original rogue and moria (even when I'm assaulted by that blasted canine ;). Farmer Maggot should really teach that dog some manners!) over nethack. Nonetheless, it does not fit the tone of the article. The article is not written for computer nerds like us. The people who would be interested in those games (NetHack and UQM, that is) probably already know what Linux is. Star Control 2 is a prominent classic game. However, in neighboring subsections under the "Distribution" header, it talks about modern Desktop Environments, modern distros, and modern desktop applications (e.g. "desktop publishing"), not about classic equivalents. The games I suggested are all fairly modern in both play-style and graphics. If you don't think they are popular enough, see this poll of Linux gamers ( http://www.linux-gamers.net/modules/xoopspoll/pollresults.php?poll_id=71 ) in which Nexuiz came in first, even over popular closed-source games. Seriously, there's been enough "best-games-ever" to devote an entire article to (there might very well be one), and enough Linux ports and remakes of classic games to write a book about (just pick a classic game and prepend "g" to the title--or spell it with k or x--and that's probably the name of a Linux remake). Be honest: did you first read this article with the mindset of improving it, or to learn about this strange computer-thingie called Linux that's sort of like Windows or Mac? Right. Thought so ;). It seems the rest of the article was written to 1) define Linux terms (e.g. distro, package), 2) give Linux history, 3) demonstrate ways in which Linux is a viable OS. To me, it still seems like it would be most congruous to change the list of games to list games that compete with modern games. I hope I was clear. Cheers! michaelb Talk to this user 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not just expand the section to talk about classic gaming under Linux, modern open source developments, and commercial ports/cedega stuff?  Then you can list everybody.  If the section gets too big, create a Linux Gaming article and write a summary of that in this one.  Then it's a natural growth process, and everybody's happy.  Chris Pickett 07:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of games 

message: I've reformatted the article to use the previous layout. I just see it as more logical, and easier to work from. In the process I merged the intro "Linux is used from iPods to Crays" thing into the "Linux is used from iPaqs to Z9s" thing, and removed a duplicate section on the trademark that I think user:AdrianTM added because the previous section appeared to have vanished (it was hidden much further down the article).
I've also removed the line breaks in the first few refs again. This article has over twenty such templates in it. It might make individual refs less readable in the edit view, but it makes the body of text much more compact and thus easier to scroll through. I'd ask for further discussion before this is changes, and if it's going to be changed back it should be applied to all refs, not just the first few. Chris Cunningham 10:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reordering, line breaks in refs 

message: The IPA system means very little to me; is it pronounced "line-ux" or "lin-ux" or even, "lin-oox?
Thanks 89.213.8.130 13:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Sorry! Removed my comment, I was afraid that that will be the prelude to a revert war similar to what I've seen on GNU page about pronunciation. -- AdrianTM 21:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. And AdrianTM, get a job you vindictive layabout. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.163.139.174 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: He said he was sorry. Mike92591 23:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anymore. -- AdrianTM 01:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

message: I think this discussion is a proof that the current intro doesn't work, I think "GNU/Linux" from the introduction is making people to lose focus as we see here. The article is about operating systems based on Linux kernel. -- AdrianTM 03:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this says anything about the intro it's that your opinion does not have unanimous backing.  The article is about operating systems that are more GNU than they are Linux.  The mascot issue is seperate and I'm not sure what the right thing to do is. Gronky 12:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly! See, I say, and the introduction says too that the article is about "operating systems based on Linux kernel" you say that's "about operating systems that are more GNU than they are Linux". I think it's a grave confusion here because of minority view POV pushing. I removed that from intro. -- AdrianTM 13:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That these OSs are more GNU than they are Linux kernel is fact.  So the fact that GNU is a core part should be mentioned with equal or greater prominence than the fact that Linux kernel is a core part.  Asking for different is asking for Wikipedia to publish inaccurate information.  No mascot debate changes this. Gronky 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, Adrian, you posted this suggestion as a possible outcome a while ago.  As you can see, people (including yourself) weren't happy with it.  80.233.255.7 15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I remember from the many, many hours of debate was that we kept going round and round in circles because some editors refused to listen to the policies of the site - particularly the naming ones. Yes, Linux the OS contains some GNU stuff but that is immaterial - the fact still remains that 99% of the world refers to the OS as Linux. Why should our article on that OS be any different from the rest of the world? Why should we give undue weight to a name that is only used by a minority? We have an article regarding the debate, we have a brief mention of that debate in this article and also point out that sometimes the OS has been called 'GNU/Linux'. As we pointed out before, GNU/Linux is by far the minority name for the OS...-Localzuk(talk) 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main thing that keeps the debate going in circles is that people are confusing two seperate issues.  Issue #1 is over what title the article should have and what it should say regarding what name(s) are used for the OS.  Issue #2 is how to describe the OS.  In the threads of the last month I've repeatedly stated that the OS that is the topic of this article is more GNU than it is Linux kernel, so GNU should get equal or more prominent mention than Linux kernel.  I'm talking about issue #2, but everyone who replies to me changes the topic to issue #1 by saying "only a minority call it GNU/Linux" etc. - which is neither here nor there when talking about issue #2.  Issue #2 is hard to discuss because many people's thinking is clouded by strong feelings either way about issue #1.  The current intro is not very informative about what the OS is, why it exists, or where it came from.  I'm not very happy with the current intro, but at least it has the small concession that GNU is not completely hidden, so readers have a starting point from where they can learn about the OS. Gronky 18:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is the point. The article is about OS's based around the Linux kernel and not GNU. I think maybe we need a seperate GNU/Linux article for the specifics surrounding 'Gnu/Linux' to be discussed.-Localzuk(talk) 19:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If starting points are important, lets open with a mention the eight years of work the GNU project put into making this OS exist before Linus started his kernel.  But no matter which project you take as the starting point, the end result is more GNU than Linux kernel.  This is an article about GNU. Gronky 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to forget to mention that it's "Linux distributions" not "GNU distributions" (it's Red Hat Linux not Red Hat GNU) BTW, I started to think that "Linux" article should be merged into Linux distributions which is a more appropriate name since there's no "Linux" per se (beside the kernel). -- AdrianTM 19:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Red Hat choose the name for marketing reasons.  Wikipedia aims at accuracy.  When I talk about it, I say "Red Hat's GNU+Linux distro", because that's what it is. Gronky 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove mention of GNU/Linux from the summary 

message: Should the different versions of Linux be listed\linked to from here?
--24.172.195.239 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article links to Linux distributions, from which the list of Linux distributions is linked.  Or do you mean Linux kernel versions?  80.233.255.7 15:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm>This confusion is unbearable, we must remove all mentions of "Linux" from the page or put them down at the bottom</sarcasm>  Hehe, hope y'all can take a joke. Gronky 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Versions