Talk:Linux/Archive 3

message: I rearranged the intro to make it slightly friendlier to the lay reader, and it has ben reverted. Please imagine that someone who barely knows what at OS is (ie the average windows user) has been directed to this article. Having a second paragraph about kernels and GNU will send them running away screaming. You're not doing yourself any favours here. Please reconsider. -- Tarquin 19:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro, again 

message: It says: Its market share for desktops is rapidly growing. According to market research company IDC, 25% of servers and 2.8% of desktop computers were already running Linux in 2002...
Any references??
192.38.79.233 09:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market share 

message: We have a linux fan who keeps removing the link to the Washing Powder. Stop it, its immature and smacks of blatant blind devotion to a cause that makes you unable to accept that something else might have the same name and just as much right to a dab header. --Kiand 12:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washing Powder 

message: I feel that "Many distributions are at least as easy to install as a comparable version of Windows." is someone's POV. The question is: who's POV is it? We need to source that! Also, what does "Many distributions contain much more software than Windows, so per package they are also much easier to install." mean? That is not clear. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 02:35 (UTC)
I think in general the article lacks a NPOV. For example:
"Microsoft-sponsored studies such as those by IDC have argued that Linux had a higher total cost of ownership (TCO) than Windows. However, Relevantive, the renowned Berlin-based organization specializing in consulting companies on the usability of software and Web services, concluded that the usability of Linux for a set of desktop-related tasks is 'equal to Windows XP.'"
This smacks of pro-linux anti-microsoft. I think its innapropiate to start this sentence with "microsoft-sponsored" because it tries to discredit the report even before introducing it. Then, in the next sentence, even before making the point, the word 'renowned' is used of the people who came up with the pro-Linux study. So basically, the hidden message I get from this language is anyone who says Linux is bad is bad. 
66.75.49.213
Yes, there's a lot of subjective and POV statements regarding "user friendliness", as well as various unsourced claims regarding prevalence.  It reads like a large Linux advocacy article.  Just some examples:
*"This stereotype has been dispelled in recent years by the increased user-friendliness and broad adoption of many Linux distributions. "
*"Linux is also often used in embedded systems" (no source, and the examples are of pervasive computing, not embedded)
*"Linux is rapidly gaining popularity as a desktop operating system. " (unsourced)
*"Additionally proprietary software for other operating systems may be run through compatibility layers, such as Wine" (doesn't mention problems with Wine--this is like a "counter argument" section)
*"Because of reluctance to change and the fact that many computers come with Windows pre-installed, there has been initially a slow adoption of new desktop operating systems. " (speculation)
*"Linux is rapidly gaining popularity as a desktop operating system as it is increasingly used in schools and workplaces and more people become familiar with it." (unsourced)
*"Many distributions are at least as easy to install as a comparable version of Windows"
And there's also the issue of the cost estimates of developing Linux.  Those aren't encyclopedic and the (at least he first one) is based on arm chair calculations from a single non-scientist, it's not actually a scientific study.
I think this article is hopeless.
Nathan J. Yoder 18:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV terms 

message: It's true, it's true JacksonBrown 03:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Somebody will come along to delete you this soon. --67.172.99.160 00:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Desktop" Linux sucks

message: This section included A Linux boot loader will boot the Linux system when the PC is restarted and the user chooses to boot Linux. Similar approaches include Cygwin and coLinux. I removed the mention of Cygwin since it isn't a method for installing or running Linux at all. —PrologFan {Talk} 22:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Installation on an existing platform - Cygwin 

message: The name of the article ("Linux") is POV (because of the linux naming controversy. Would anyone objects if I change it to the more NPOV term "Linux OS"?
:—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.245.196.30 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 15 August 2005.
:Yes, I would object. We try to use the name people will typically look for. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal either way. Let's not make things more complicated for no good reason. Rl 14:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Article Name 

message: Rather than start an edit war i'd like to request opinions of a change of the second paragraph of article Linux.
I've changed around the second paragraph, trying to keep all the content but making it more readable, and less pretentious and prescriptive. That is, trying to talk about what the usage is in the real world, rather than what I think it should be, but leaving the argument in there too. I've moved the term "GNU/Linux" to be along side "Linux" as they are synonymous in this sense. I've also removed the needless link to http://lwn.net/Distributions/ . I originally simple unhid the link to GNU/Linux naming controversy, (by saying "see: ...") but later deleted it as it's discussed in the article, and i felt it was adequently addressed (for the opening paragraphs) already. Overall I feel the proposed version is simply more accessable and addresses the issues well, but i realise that isn't self evident to everyone, and it's a touchy area for some. 
Rather than start an edit war i'd like to request votes to keep or ignore.
Proposed version:
:Linux, or GNU/Linux, is Unix-like and combines the Linux kernel, libraries and tools from the GNU project, and other bundled software into a complete operating system. According to the Free Software Foundation and others, the term Linux strictly refers only to the Linux kernel, while the term GNU/Linux should be used otherwise so as to credit the contribution of the GNU project. Many Linux distributions exist to enable the installation and maintenance of the operating system.
Old version:
:The term Linux strictly refers to the Linux kernel, but 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. Linux distributions often bundle large quantities of software with the core system, and over 300 distributions are available .
Cast your vote...
—Pengo 03:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep ( i.e., vote for Proposed version ). I like it but i think a little more about the difference between the kernel and OS wouldnt be bad --2mcm 06:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: With all due respect to the "consensus", i wouldn't wipe my bum with the old version. I changed it, it got reverted. I put it up here for discussion and explained it. I waited. I changed it again. If you have any specific problems with it, please say so. —Pengo 05:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care enough (yet) to propose a different wording. However, there's no need to express such contempt for a version that quite a few people could live with. For what it's worth, I don't remember participating in the creation of the old version, but I liked it better. Rl 06:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm. I like the idea of unhiding the "GNU/Linux naming controversy" link, but it isn't any more visible in the current version. Also, I find the old version more readable and direct. Could you explain how you find the old version pretentious and prescriptive? In particular, the charge of prescriptiveness is serious, as that's explicitly counter to what an encyclopedia ought to be. --Yath 06:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Prescriptive in the sense it says how the word "Linux" ought to be used (i.e. "The term Linux strictly refers to the Linux kernel"), rather than just talking about generally accepted usage. I put the proposed version back and someone (RandalSchwartz) added the GNU/Linux naming controversy link to it soon after. Probably a good thing. —Pengo 13:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just ignored the vote, sorry.  I think we can agree that: some call it Linux, others call it GNU/Linux, RMS and the GNU project want it to be GNU/Linux, Linus doesn't, and others are in various camps about that.  Can we keep it to those facts? --14:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The reason why i prefered the new version is that is explains what Linux is from the ground up. If a non-Linux and non-computer user was to look at the old version they would still have no idea what Linux is ( maybe something to do with corn kernels ? ). The old version is fine but only on a very technical view. --2mcm 06:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Point taken, Stevenj. I don't feel the old version reflects what you've said, but instead sounds like Linux-vs-GNU/Linux side-taking. The phrase "narrowest sense" is much better than "strictly speaking". I'd like to see something in the article that reflects what you've just said. I don't think the old version (or proposed version) does. —Pengo 02:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes for Second para change 

message: Linux is not for everyone, even though it sounds so stable and reliable, you need to know codes and commands to do almost anything, to install almost anything. It is best for Computer programmers or IT professionals. Although Machintosh came out with a great GUI Interface which anybody can use and is completely based on the linux Kernal.
:That's an interesting (albeit inaccurate) description, but anyways - did you have anything you actually wanted to discuss? ¦ Reisio 13:07, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
:The new Machintosh operating system, Mac OS X, is not based on the Linux kernel.  It is based on a UNIX-like OS, BSD, developed at Berkeley. —Sean κ. + 15:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux Takes Skill 

message: Is £X a official acronym for Linux-systems? Wonder only. 82.182.82.20 08:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to my knowledge. ¦ Reisio 12:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Never seen it before —Sean κ. + 15:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: £X = Linux?