Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy/Archive 3

message: Has anyone suggested simply ending the controversy by introducing a new name for Linux and GNU's naming controversy?
Why not call it "LG" as in Linux/GNU - which sounds a lot like "Algae". Simple. Effective. Descriptive. 
"Algae" would be an appropriate name for the operating system, as it continues to evolve and grow into related, independent children. It also ends the controversy altogether, by acknowledging a dispute exists by those who know about it. LG, Algae - what do you think? 
If you like it, spread the word.
inigmatus 18:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new name: Algae 

message: This section states:
:"...which began the development of a complete Unix-like operating system composed entirely of free software in January 1984."
However, the article I was reading that linked to this particular article (GNU) notes:
:"The GNU project was announced in September 1983 by Richard Stallman..."
Perhaps the author(s) of one or the other articles were percieving the original date in different ways (announcement vs. beginnin of work, etc), but it would be good to have these dates nicely in agreement accross the pages. I am placing this comment here with the Linux Naming Controversy page, as it links off of the primary GNU article. Dxco 07:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is correct as worded, but somewhat confusing I agree.  According to here and here the GNU project was announced in 1983 but work was not begun on it until 1984. This should be clarified at GNU.  —Steven G. Johnson 19:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
:*Support, as per own nomination and above discussions, Gronky 13:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oppose. The page covers the disagreement over the naming, its history and context, and the motivations/arguments behind both naming usages: the controversy.  "Debate" is less apt, especially because no prominent figure on the side of the "Linux" status quo seems to have been more than marginally involved in a "debate" over the naming in the usual argument-and-rebuttal sense (with good reason: they haven't needed to).  (Your POV may vary, but "controversy" is more neutral.) ——Steven G. Johnson 10:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Support: Given the definition above which notes the difference between debate and controversy I agree that Debate may be a better word than controversy, however if there are any other synonyms avaliable which portray the subject more accurately I would support that as well. The word controversy has a negative connotation that should be avoided under the doctrine of NPOV. Kode 01:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: :Add any additional comments
Moved from WP:RM
:There seems to be no consensus on the article talk page, the only "vote" there is by User:Gronky. I strongly suggest we hold off on this until there is consensus on the articles talk page.  ALKIVAR™ 13:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a misunderstanding.  The vote only opened 5 minutes ago.  Have I botched the procedure somewhere? Gronky 13:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not AFAICT but you should include the pages in the Requested moved section (I have done it for you) otherwise when the template is removed there is no archive record of what the WP:RM was. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Anyone else find it noteworthy that you can't find any of the words "six" "abdomen" "stomach" nor "muscle" in the article?  
Me, I notice that shit, and it make me laf sometimes. 
No? Despite the fact that the article is basically about two groups, both of which are at least indicative of (if not predominantly "about") brains over brawn, struggling with each other about who has the rights to claim biggest dick (or at least over who has the rights to  name the bloodline, which is pretty much the same arguement) who have chosen as their iconic representation something chubby-but-winning and/vs something chiseled-but-frightful?  
It seems like the article ought to acknowledge in some way the rotund vs. angular comparisons that the icons would seem to call for.
There maybe also oughta be, though perhaps nowhere else but here, some reference to the comparing the GNU creature's abs & Tux's belly with profile pics of anyone who's ever contributed a line of code to GNU\Linux.  That'd prolly be some funny shit, ozz bless'it.
Perhaps Poorly Put here, but oh well.  -:)Ozzyslovechild 02:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can't find: "six" "abdomen" "stomach" nor "muscle" anywhere in the article. 

message: Why has this article been selected as a featured article? It is rambling if not repetitive, the writing is unremarkable and it is clearly too topical. This whole issue will have been forgotten in a very few years. Free software matters to many, naming controversies do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.58.20.166 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 May 2006
:This article was made a featured article sometime in mid-2004. Since then the standards for featured articles have gone up, and also the article may have been heavily edited so that it is different from then. I don't think that the importance of an issue is relevant to featured article status, only the comprehensiveness, accuracy, and general quality of the article. -- Centrx 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is always WP:FARC. NicM 22:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this a featured article? 

message: Google just released Google Earth for Linux. Their Web pages talk about "Google Earth for Linux", but the installer says this:
 $ ./GoogleEarthLinux.bin
 Verifying archive integrity... All good.
 Uncompressing Google Earth for GNU/Linux 4.0.1563........
Kind of curious! --FOo 05:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "GNU/Linux" spotted in a nonpolitical context ... 

message: There do exist embedded systems which consist of (1) a Linux kernel (2) a static binary running as process 1. Not even a shell or uClibc! (I know someone who designed some. I'll try to get details to note as an e.g.) - David Gerard 14:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bare systems

message: I have a small suggestion re the difficulties in making clear why some distinctions about the kernel vs the system are important in this issue. The choice of including GNU programs beyond the build framework was that of specific early distributions and by no means excluded non-GNU sources. Specifically I recall early Slackware distributions borrowing from the old BSD Net sources, and for a long time it was possible to directly compile SunOS sources. So common usage favoured GNU sources but not exclusively, nor as a result of fitting a kernel into an existing OS and was primarily driven by the needs of general distributions, not because doing otherwise was impossible. If this makes sense, perhaps this point can be integrated by someone braver than I. --ewe2 07:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Distributions