Talk:GNewSense

message: I haven't been following this thread, but I just saw a note that this article is "the only one on Wikipedia" which uses the name "GNU/Linux" for the GNU+Linux operating system.  I'd just like to point out, again, that the only reason "GNU/Linux" appears rarely on Wikipedia is because last Summer, Chris here, alone, replaced every occurrence of "GNU/Linux" with "Linux".  Some people expressed concern, but Chris edits more than all those people combined, so it was impossible to stop his harmful activity.  Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't provide much protection against this type of harmful editting (which I call an "edit flood").
My position is like that of Wikipedians Jimbo Wales, Simon Phipps, Dkrogers, NerdyNSK, Mion, etc.  From the point of view of writing an encyclopedia article, GNU/Linux is the right and correct name.
All we can do is save what little we can and hope that WP develops a protection against this or hope that Chris becomes less powerful sometime in the future.  That could happen if many new Wikipedians come and stay and eventually counterbalance the weight of Chris's edits (and this article suggests that this may be already happening).   --Gronky (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to open an RFC on this, but suffice to say that the history presented here is sheer revisionism. Editors without a clear understanding of the history of the debate are encouaged to read this thread. There was a longstanding and unrefuted motion for change on Talk:Linux, I took the time to edit stray articles to reflect the consensus, and for over six months Gronky has been crying foul and forum shopping to try to rewrite the history of the debate without engaging in any good-faith dispute resolution. I've already had to substantially reduce my editing time on the project as a result of being made a personal target for this campaign. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A shining light on Wikipedia

message: An RfC for the naming issue has been opened here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnewsense-users/2008-04/msg00288.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.139.183 (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  gNewSense 2.0 is out 

message: Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was software patents and free software - a well-referenced article about the problems and solutions for software patents in the free software community.  Help is sought however to expand the sections in that article.
For other interesting free software articles, you can take a look at the archive of PF's selectees. --Gronky (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, things are moving on again.  The new selectee is Psiphon - a award-winning piece of software that's not very well known.  It allows someone with censored Internet access to get full Internet access via a proxy.  The classic example is that it can let people in China read and contribute to Wikipedia. --Gronky (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Portal:Free software]] selected article: gNewSense 

message: Can someone add to the "Technical aspects" section of the article which package management systems GNS can make use of?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogburnd02 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you add? 

message: I dont feel the citation #10 is a valuable/useful one. It doesnt seem to actually answer *why* this is the case.
And related to that, I'm not aware of any GFDL+invariant sections documentation *in* gNS. It doesn't consider it non-free, but it hasn't added any in. So That point may be totally incorrect.
Kgoetz (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Examples are rather easy to find (for example the package gawk-doc, which is in Debian's non-free repository and gnewsense's main). However I agree that the citation is not a very good one. --SLi (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "comparison with debian" needs better citation 

message: What sort of citation is required? Perhaps it was actually the statement about "good usability" that requires it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgoetz (talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [citation needed] by "focuses on software freedom" 

message: This version seems like an acceptable compromise to both me and Grandscribe. I'm not even going to try to figure out what was meant by the edit summary when it was summarily reverted, but let's see if we can't agree to restore that wording as it's more acceptable than the current version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As there's been no response, I've reverted to the prior compromise. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: don't play the innocent, we talked this through, if you have new arguments, please let us know. Mion (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The compromise wording is a fair compromise to the parties involved. It explicitly gives the FSF's wording on what gNewSense is composed of. I do not pretend to "play the innocent"; I merely expect that editors will discuss issues with me if given a whole week to do so. I had contacted dissenting editors to inform them of the change. Silence implies consensus. As it stands, Gronky has not weighed in and both Grandscribe and I agree on my wording. In the event that no further argument is advanced, the compromise wording will be restored. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So far no argument is presented for a change. Mion (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  English is not your first language, but it is mine, so please consider that when I am presented with a challenge I respond to it. The entire wording I'm proposing has changed since the last debate. It is an entirely new argument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its nice to have two discussions, User_talk:Mion#Please_consider_compromise, but if the only argument is, i'm going to try this every 3 months until I get what I want, than sorry Mion (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "What I want" is an end to this petty feud and a compromise which is acceptable to all parties. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To end the feud, simply stop your solitary campaign to rid Wikipedia of "GNU/Linux".  The laudable goal of "acceptable to all parties" does not give you free rein to pound on this until you get something that's acceptable to you. --Gronky (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's unacceptable. If Grandscribe agrees with a compromise which reframes the lede of this article in a manner which very closely echoes the FSF's position, why will you not? The term "GNU/Linux" is a controversial, minority name. If we can avoid using it while also sticking closely to the way parties which use that term frame the situation then this seems to be the optimal solution. "Pounding on this" by engaging other users in debate and attempting to find common ground where possible is how all issues should be resolved on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello Chris. I hope you have not misunderstood me. We had a discussion concerning the edits that had been done to the intro of this article that had omitted the term GNU. I think those changes (removing GNU) I found were NOT made by you. So when I put GNU back it was to bring the article to the previously accepted version. I know you suggested using the terms "GNU operating system" for this article and I found it better than not mentioning GNU at all. But at the same time I think the participation of the other regular editors of this article was necessary. --Grandscribe (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworded intro 

message: Is it "nuisance"?  -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: pronunciation

message: The next set of Mesa packages uploaded to the gNewSense archive (which should be there already) will re-introduce GLX support. Brian has posted on http://www.gnewsense.org/Main/HomePage , and SVN commit 223 was the code change. kgoetz (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  GLX is back. 

message: Two reasons for gNewSense being notable:
#It's given FSF assistance.
#It is one of three distros meeting Richard Stallmans strict standards for freedom.
Autarch (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Does a comparison with SuperOS provide any benefit (other then increase S.OS's link pool). I question its relevance, as the distro is no-name and seems to have no /actual/ comparison made on this page. kgoetz (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neutral about this. On one side, Super OS and gNewSense are on extremes in the open source world, so a comparison might make sense. But on the other side, the way things are worded might sound like a criticism to Super OS. Like I said, I'm neutral. Feel free to re-word that or remove it. Disclaimer: I have both gNewSense and Super OS (on different PCs). SF007 (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone removed that. Probably the best thing to to. SF007 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to SuperOS? 

message: Due to being made aware of a dispute on this page, I have protected it until disputes are resolved (with an expiry of two weeks in case I forget). Obviously, reaching a consensus on the talk page (regarding the above issue) is the most compelling way to show the dispute is resolved. Thanks for your patience, GDonato (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: IMHO, there is no POV in using the word GNU/Linux to designate the whole system, and the expression GNU/Linux distribution to designate a distro. Please, see the linux-kernel mailing list FAQ for more information. 
In this FAQ, we have tried to use the word "Linux" or the expression "Linux kernel" to designate the kernel, and GNU/Linux to designate the entire body of GNU/GPL'ed OS software, as found in the various distributions. We prefer to call a cat, a cat, and a GNU, a GNU. ;-)
The purpose of the FAQ is to provide information on the Linux kernel and avoid debates on e.g. semantics issues. Further discussion of the relationship between GNU software and Linux can be found at http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html.
BTW, it seems many people forget that the linux kernel mailing list is a forum for discussion of kernel-related matters, not GNU/Linux in general; please do not bring up this subject on the list. [...] GNU/Linux distributions are usually based on [...] except for kernels included in GNU/Linux distributions which [...]  (Genium (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a large and longstanding consensus on Wikipedia that we use the most common name which is Linux. If you don't agree then then the correct procedure is to start a discussion on changing this on Talk:Linux so all articles on Linux would be changed and not piecemeal change individual articles, but first you need to read all the 32 archives for that page, plus Talk:Linux/Name and Talk:Linux/Referring to this article. You will notice at the bottom of Talk:Linux that this was again recently brought up and again opposed. Basically it doesn't matter to Wikipedia what the FSF and Richard Stallman say, it matters what is in common use. For example if General Motors decided to call their products "autodynes", Wikipedia would not change all references to "cars" to "autodynes", not even in articles on GM products, because the common usage is still "cars". - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already reverted 3 times, so I won't do it again, but it appears we have an editor bent on edit-warring to insist it should be "GNU/Linux".  The behavior (including the socks he appears to be using) has been reported at WP:AN3#User:Boot3414 reported by User:Msnicki (Result: ).  Msnicki (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. As described above the place to fight this war is at Talk:Linux and gain a new consensus, not here in a minor, peripheral article. At this point this edit warring becomes nothing more than plain old vandalism. - Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think using GNU/Linux is needlessly verbose, except in this case. When I came to this article I expected the term GNU/Linux to be used. For every other distro the term linux only makes sense. For this distro it is insulting to call it anything but GNU/Linux. Of course now I see I cannot be bold since I'd be mistaken for a sock puppet. Yay wikipedia. 70.75.187.207 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now gNewSense is simply called a distribution in the article, and the consensual term Linux distribution only ever shows up referring to Debian. Isn't this a rather disingenuous way to avoid acknowledging that gNewSense is as much a Linux distribution as Debian or any other is, according to the terminology established on Wikipedia by its own policies, whether the project's developers like it or not, or anyone else for that matter? 176.83.204.30 (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree,  - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNU/Linux system and GNU/Linux distro 

message: I hate to sound derisory but rms's obvious overall endorsement of the gNewSense distro is not entirely genuine as it evades the question of all of the other gnu/distros that the gnu team, of which rms is a part of, has tested out of the box, on reportedly Power-PC's. I find that this blights that very nerve of existence the gNewSense O/S provides as it is possible to use QEMU to allow for other distros to be used as a modular integration to the overall package. This progression thru the functionality of the distro qualifies a "significant change" to the personas that the distro encapsulates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.16.10.128 (talk) 
:: I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to get at. kgoetz (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. Perhaps you can explain yourself more clearly. - Ahunt (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  rms uses gNewSense out-ta the box 

message: This GNU/Linux distribution qualifies as a GNU Guidelines for Free System Distributions (GNU GFSD) . This guideline calls to avoid certain terms , two of which can be found in the Template:infobox OS:
* source_model
* marketing_target
I have unsuccessfully commented out them with references to the GNU GFSD with something like this (with and without  links):

| marketing_target       = <!-- GNU GFSD committed distribution - https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#words-to-avoid -->
| source_model           = <!-- GNU GFSD committed distribution - https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#words-to-avoid -->

Despite name-calling like "spam" and "vandalism" when using these license references in the Template:infobox OS, the problem calls for attention. If I haven't used the right method to signal the problem, what method should I use? Is there a way to raise the issue that follows rules but isn't a hopeless dead end? --David Hedlund (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Template_talk:Infobox_OS#Source_model, was answered, the whole question is, is there an issue ? If people want to know if they get access to the source code they can now quickly look that up, and in general for most packages the more important item in the template is the actual used licences and from that license type people can retrieve what the development method is, so the writer of GNU guideline should scroll down to the bottom of the template next time to conclude that there is no reason for confusion. As for including links to the GNU guidelines in the template, aldo we reference often to GNU if there is a reason for, Wikipedia templates follow Wikipedia guidelines so adding external guidelines to this template without consensus is not done Cheers Mion (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Mion. I took these out because what goes in the infobox in any given article or series of articles is determined by Wikipedia policy and consensus, not by some third party like GNU or FSF. FSF has a long history of trying to get Wikipedia articles to spread its doctrine here, but that is against consensus. As I noted in my edit summaries, Wikipedia policy is not set by GNU or FSF and links to what they want said should not be inserted into info boxes as an attempt to get editors to conform to GNU or FSF dogma. It is WP:POV and doesn't respect Wikipedia editing policy, particularly WP:CONSENSUS. It is spamming GNU and FSF dogma and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia obeys the open source doctrine which calls for making free software appear marginal. But this could be changed of course; could my suggestions be applied if the author of gNewSense explicitly told Wikipedia not to force them express those terms on the gNewSense article? --David Hedlund (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course not. Wikipedia is independent and doesn't take instructions on what article should read like from the subjects of the articles, that would be a conflict of interest. Basically Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a PR vehicle. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are using Wikpedia as a PR vehicle for "open source", Wikipedia's fiercely maintained "independence" applies only in certain directions. --David Hedlund (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I don't understand your point here. Wikipedia articles look the way they do because of WP:CONSENSUS, this prevents people using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for their own personal crusades. If you feel strongly about this issue I suggest you start your own blog where you are free to push any WP:POV you like. - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOAPBOX is a good point to mention as is PR on Open-source software (where this discussion belongs), hopefully i remember this well, it was up to 2008 that mainly the FSF went to court to defend the licenses used, not many people mentioned OSI at all, (described in Open Source Initiative) and since Adobe/Google/Mozilla joined OSI we see claims like "The Open Source Initiative's (OSI) definition is recognized[who?] as the standard or de facto definition." on Open-source software, that article looks more like advertising than consensus to me. Mion (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Words to avoid per GNU GFSD

message: The dates in the table under "Versions" are using the ISO 8601 format (YYYY-MM-DD). May  or another editor state the reason to use this format? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, it wasn't me that instituted that formatting. I generally prefer D-M-Y as it is the most clear to all readers. - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be a good reason and the English Wikipedia does this. However, are there any sources stating that D-M-Y is the most clear to readers, either English or international? 84.127.115.190 (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date format in table 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on GNewSense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080927044147/http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00129 to http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00129
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified