Talk:Linux/Archive 20

message: I noticed at the top of the page it says we need to improve it -- so presumably, it was removed. I know that I, personally, would like to have a list of criticisms from good sources, and responses to them; such as at this debate. I wouldn't know where to get started though, so I could use some help --Laugh! 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism sections in articles like this are almost always a bad idea. This is a summary-style article; I can't think of any criticism which wouldn't be better targeted at the distribution article, or the kernel article, or the KDE one or whatever. And they attract idiots like almost nothing else on WP. Chris Cunningham 09:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This was already discussed here: Talk:Linux#.22Criticisms.22_section -- AdrianTM 12:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, just wanted to see --Laugh! 20:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that Wikipedia:Criticism is an essay, not a policy. That said, criticism of Linux in general seems to be quite rare; perhaps due to its very small userbase and/or because of the fact that it is generally distributed at no cost.  — arcsec(x) 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That essay is indeed an essay, but this is a guideline which discourages splitting information based on 'pro' and 'anti' divides. Combined with WP:NPOV it is quite a clear cut case that criticism sections and articles should not be used - unless, I may hasten to add, criticism of a subject is a notable subject in itself.Localzuk(talk) 07:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that "Criticism..." might be an appropriate section in art, literature, theatre articles, an OS is not (although some people might claim otherwise) an art item that demands criticism, an OS might have advantages and disadvantages for some group of users, and those should be organically integrated into the article -- for example if the OS is unsecure it should be mentioned in a section about Security (with required references of course), not in a "Criticism of..." section, same thing goes for usability and compatibility and whatever you might think of. -- AdrianTM 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section. 

message: How can alternative kernels be merged into this? With development on Hurd now at a point where X Windows and even web browsing are now possible, and the increasing GNU/OpenSolaris movement, this is an increasing requirement. --Mattl 01:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the "operating systems that use the Linux kernel", for operating systems that use other kernels I suggest you add info to Unix-like or to their respective pages BSD, Hurd, etc. -- AdrianTM 06:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, there's a specific article for these: GNU variants. Chris Cunningham 07:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative kernels 

message: Shouldn't we name a few of the distributions of Linux? Also, the fact that Linux getting a virus needs to be recognized as impossible.
:We also have a list of linux distributions in our see also section. And Linux getting a virus isn't impossible, haven't you ever heard of the GPL? OK, all jokes aside, yes, but it isn't impossible, there HAVE been linux viruses, they're just not successful like Windows viruses. It's a matter of security and such, and that's probably better handled by our articles on computer security or unix --L-- 03:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true-- non-windows systems don't have viruses because they're far too much effort to make for the little reward compared to Windows systems, not to mention the permissions management being much nicer. The last virus I heard of that even affected Linux system was an OOo virus-- which didn't effect the OS itself, just the program. Getting a virus on Linux, OSX, or other Unix-likes is effectively impossible, because they just don't exist, and if they did, *nix users are generally more computer savvy and don't do things like open random emails, or run programs just to see what they do --Lucid 01:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distributions & No Viruses 

message: I'm not going to respond to people who don't sign their posts, hope other people will do the same. -- AdrianTM 02:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree, furthermore I guess that new messages should be always posted below the most recent; if the new message belongs to a previous paragraph, then write a short summary or a reference to such paragraph, and after that, leave the new message.--B J Bradford 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind responding to people that don't sign their posts, as long as they sign it after they're asked. After that you can grow up, read what people tell you to, and get along --L-- 16:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear user:L, I am sure that both AdrianTM and myself are just posting suggestions on how to improve the readablity of this page. Your above comment seems inappropriate, the words "after you can grow up" can be read as personal attack. Please note that I would like to move your former messages so that everything can be read in its own chronological order even by people that come here from time to time.B J Bradford 16:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about people that don't sign their posts after being told to- or ignore any rule after being told to, really. Sorry if the punctuation was vague. --L-- 16:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm very sorry if I may have mis-understood anything. Cheers, ;)  --B J Bradford 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please sign your posts 

message: "Others maintain a community version of their commercial distributions, as RedHat does with Fedora."
Or Novell with openSUSE. 89.201.132.64 11:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but we don't need to list them - just a single example is fine.-Localzuk(talk) 12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  opensuse/sled 

message: ...but only one of them has been online since 1992, is continuously updated, contains information about almost any Linux topic imaginable, has been mentioned in the Linux kernel README, and is used by Debian as a source of documentation.  Do your home work.  80.233.255.7 22:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't discuss with anonymous persons on my talk page when the discussion belongs to the article talk page, anyway, Wikipedia is not a collection of links, when a site is not even official and there are thousands of similar sites (newer or older) it shouldn't be listed in the article, of course this is my opinion only if somebody can show me a good argument I can change my mind... but if you try to convince me try to find a consistent way to treat links listed in this article: "what features does a site has to have in order to belong here?" give me an answer to this question, build consensus and then we can judge all links with the same yardstick. -- AdrianTM 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest that web sites be evaluated the same way any piece of information added to Wikipedia is evaluated:  based on notability.  I gave you, in my opinion, sufficient evidence of the web site's significance.  Why do I see no such reaction to the linux.org web site being added?  80.233.255.7 00:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure linux.org belongs there either (I will remove it), again I would like to see some consistent way to treat links. -- AdrianTM 03:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are hundreds of tutorial sites... 

message: I am unable to find, anywhere on the Internet, any serious and non-biased criticism of Linux and open-source.
Other than Microsoft, De Tocqueville, and SCO propaganda, there are no serious sources of information on this topic. A Google or Yahoo search on "anti-Linux" reveals plenty of topics on "anti-Linux attitudes" and "anti-Linux lawsuits," etc. The few "anti-Linux" sites are "anti-Linux on the desktop" or "anti-Linux for the average Joe."
I have a few problems with Linux and OSS myself, such as the effect on the ability of small businesses to develop and sell software, the decentralized means of development (including from a security standpoint), and the fact that the kernel consists of unofficial drivers (unlike DOS, Windows, and Mac).
Perhaps someone can do research to find Wikipedia-accepted sites with these and/or similar complaints? This would be a great, "fair and balanced" addition to Wikipedia.
-RedBlade7 15:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't really many. I really don't understand why people assume that there has to be a drawback involved. It's like saying "I can't find any non-biased criticism of the scientific method. Surely there must be some disadvantage to it." if there aren't any, there aren't any, and one can say so while retaining a neutral point of view. It's on your head to find reliable counters to this, not everyone else's. Chris Cunningham 15:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is Linux's "superiority" a "fact" as compared to the scientific method? -RedBlade7 15:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't use the word "superiority", so I don't know why you put it in quotation marks. The point is that you don't get to slap a NPOV tag on an article and ask other people for sources to back it up. That's putting the cart before the horse. Chris Cunningham 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chris, Why did you accuse me of "admitting I was wrong" in the edit when I specifically challenged you? -RedBlade7 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The phrase "I am unable to find, anywhere on the Internet, any serious and non-biased criticism of Linux and open-source" would seem to suggest that such a thing isn't really the source of dispute. Chris Cunningham 15:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly. RedBlade7, if you can't find anything - then maybe it simply doesn't exist. I would advise you to take a look at the NPOV policy again and ask you to read it thoroughly. NPOV does not mean 'has both positive and negative aspects discussed, regardless of prevalence and importance', it means 'covers in a neutral way, all important and notable aspects of the subject'. If there aren't criticisms enough to include, then we don't include any.-Localzuk(talk) 17:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Localzuk, obviously the opinions exist if I have them. My mother has had similar opinions longer than I have - that open-source is exploitation and is a waste of time with no way to make money (I disagree with the last part - it's just harder and the means are less ethical). And she's just a mainstream computer user with the ability to think, just like you and me! -RedBlade7 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You miss the point a bit there RedBlade7. Your view and the view of your mother are neither notable or important. Just because a bunch of people have views doesn't make them worthy of discussion. For example, I am all in favour of anarchism as a method of governing society, but my views should not be discussed on the Democracy page simply because they exist. Unless third party, reliable sources discuss the issues - which you admit above, they don't, then it is not notable enough for inclusion. So, as I said, please re-read the NPOV policy. Also, please read the verifiability policy.-Localzuk(talk) 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Adrian, how do you define "freedom?" People define "freedom" in different ways. There is the libertarian/conservative/classical liberal "freedom of" (negative liberties) and the modern liberal/socialist/communist "freedom from" (positive liberties). Also, a totalitarian can find plenty of criticisms of both types of freedom: neglect of traditional values, disturbance of the social order, slower political process, etc. So, that's an opinion as well, just like my anti-OSS opinion. -RedBlade7 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that the individual dissent of you and your mother does not a neutrality issue make. You can't find any reliable sources which can put forward valid criticisms, so it is possible to infer that this opinion simply isn't that widely held amongst informed and reliable sources. As such, assigning these sources zero weight in the article is entirely appropriate. Seriously, the talk archives are bursting with this stuff. Someone sticks a POV tag on the article roughly once a month for this kind of thing, and it's always eventually removed due to a lack of credible references. Chris Cunningham 18:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  (incidentally, if it's so much harder to make money through open source software, I wonder who's paying my mortgage. The vast majority of programmers aren't indie shareware developers, and the vast majority of sysadmins get paid for fixing open source operating systems juts like they get paid for fixing Windows.) Chris Cunningham 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, "criticism" doesn't mean "advertising slogans of the competition" ... which is what the term "viral license" is. It's a term coined by Microsoft product marketing to make free software sound like a disease. Other cute expressions they started using around the same time were to say that the GPL is a "cancer" and "communist". We should avoid treating advertising slogans as substantive criticism, since they aren't. --FOo 19:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's plenty of free software makers that dislike the GPL. Even take a look at our own article on copyleft --lucid 19:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there are. But that's not relevant to the point here. I didn't say that all criticism of the GPL was invalid; I said that the specific term "viral license" was coined by Microsoft foks for the purpose of discrediting free software. It was part of a campaign to specifically discredit the GPL, but all free software more generally. It is not useful to Wikipedia's goals to misrepresent advertising as thoughtful criticism; we shouldn't be promulgating advertising memes at all. --FOo 22:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please let's not get distracted by this completely irrelevant topic. (For what it's worth, I'm one of those people who is strongly in favour of free software and free licenses but who nonetheless appreciates the mental imagery, if not the negative connotations, of "viral license", and who generally treats the FSF's last ten years of existence as having at best zero effect on the growth of free software.) Chris Cunningham 22:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zero effect is a bit strong considering how many lines of code the FSF releases with their copyright on it per year... 206.248.128.53 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for research: Criticism of Linux