Talk:Linux/Archive 10

message: I demand that people start using the term Artistic/Linux since most of the major distributions includes Perl, which is as you know under the Artistic License.
:The "GNU" bit in GNU/Linux is refering to the large contribution of code from the GNU and not the license. Lots of Perl are dual licensed anyway (Artistic and GPL). I demand that some user stops demanding what anyone calls Linux and demand that they create a user account and login, furthermore I demand that this is enough demands. Ttiotsw 08:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artistic/Linux 

message: As of 2006, no proof of SCO's claims of copied code in Linux has been provided.
SCO have indeed shown evidence that Linux infringes SCO's copyright's. Whether or not Linux users accept that, or believe it to be true, is irrelevant.
The atricle 'suggests' SCO is simply making these things up, however they HAVE supplied physical evidence. 
Views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.149.145 (talk • contribs) 
:They've supplied 'evidence'. 'Proof' is much more than evidence, and all third parties including the courts have rejected this evidence as proof. It probably warrants re-wording, but they have not provided proof. —Centrx→talk • 21:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Is it really a good thing to link to Linux.org in the external resources on Linux? The website provides often outdated information (sometimes a few years old!) and can confuse lots of users. I think it would be much better to link to a webpage like GetGNULinux.org, which explains Linux is simple words. So, I would vote for removing the link to Linux.org and replace it with a more comprehensive website, or at least remove the second link (Linux Online). -- michux
:I don't agree. First of all that site that you want to promote doesn't even get the name right of the operating system. I would never promote such site anywhere, even less on an encyclopedia. -- AdrianTM 13:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean with the name? Thei interchangeably call it Linux and GNU/Linux. It's a common practice. Also in Wikipedia. Anyway, my goal was not to promote this single website but to start a discussion about the external links in Linux article. Linux.org is by no means a valuable resource. It's outdated and full of ads (gambling ads, and stuff like that). At least when compared to GetGNULinux.org which is clean and on-topic. Still, I think we should have a list of all valuable GNU/Linux resources and have some kind of poll which ones are the most appropriate to link to at the time being. -- michux 11:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, Wikipedia isn't a link farm. If it gets to the stage where people are arguing over which third party links to promotelink to, we should simply remove them all, and link only to the official linux sites and a dmoz listing.-Localzuk(talk) 12:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: What is this?! "Meanwhile, in 1991, another kernel was begun as a hobby by Finnish university student The Grand Exalted Linus de Penguin while attending the University of Helsinki". Factually wrong. Can this be corrected to a simple "Linus Torvalds"? --Blowtorch 10:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed now. -SpuriousQ 10:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Grand Exalted Linus de Penguin 

message: Contentious issues:
* Not all Linuxen contain GNU software, so the first sentence was factually inaccurate as well as being a random GNU advert (which consensus appears to suggest we should try to limit for stylistic and historical reasons).
* SUSE no longer exists as a separate entity, so it isn't suing anyone.
* Installation section. The deleted sentences and link were duplicates and poorly-written.
* Ada, BASIC, Pascal, Forth, Lua, Objective-C, OCaml, Eiffel, Common Lisp, D, PHP, SQL, Haskell, VHDL, Prolog, SQL, REXX, Confluence, MATLAB, Tcl, assembly, COBOL, Modula-2, Smalltalk, brainfuck, R. This is a waste of electrons and is stylistically rubbish.
I'm open to changing the following:
* C++ as system software. It generally isn't, even though there are counterexamples.
We can sort out the ordering afterwards. Chris Cunningham 14:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Hey everyone. Normally I work on Windows and OS X articles, including a lot of work on lead sections, making sure there is a balance of information and viewpoints, and generally keeping the articles at a level we can be collectively proud of as an encyclopedia.  This recent edit war and subsequent locking is dismaying... I hope you guys can sort out something that will help improve the article.  One thing I am absolutely certain of, however, is that the article as it stands right now in its locked status is horrible.  
Here's a quick sanity check:
* A picture of Richard Stallman is not required to communicate the important and relevant facts about Linux.  If anything, a GNU logo would make sense... but trying to stuff two pictures plus a diagram into a five-paragraph space is simply not going to work.
* The way this article characterised GNU/Linux for a long time was sufficient in communicating the point.  Spending an entire paragraph on it in lieu of discussing other important aspects of Linux is too much... consider that the WP:LEAD of an article should ably summarise everything that follows in the article, and should be able to stand on its own as a complete description.  Have a look at the sections of the article, especially "Usage" and "Pronounciation", and let that guide you to writing a better lead.  Don't let one aspect push out others.
* Please don't edit-war; it's embarassing that our article on Linux had to be fully locked because people aren't playing nice.   -/- Warren 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * "A picture of Richard Stallman is not required to communicate the important and relevant facts about Linux.". If the number of pictures should be reduced, I propose that that of Torvalds should be first to go. If we are calling "Linux" the OS, it should be so with all consequences. Stallman created the foundation that created the OS, not Torvalds. We can say that Linux is a work of a community... but if we were to give a single person credit for it, it would be Stallman. Giving Torvalds any prevalent position (such as including a picture of him, whereas that of Stallman is omitted) would look like we are talking about the kernel he created, instead of the OS he did not create, and is just named after his kernel. Last time I checked, the GPL certainly allowed one to take sb else's work and change its name (as so happily repeat the non-GNU zealots), but nowhere does it allow to deny attribution. — Isilanes 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. This is quite a little quagmire we've gotten ourselves into, isn't it?  It's all about credit where credit is due. RMS/GNU and Linus/Linux are both integral players in the creation of what we all commonly call Linux.  My favored solution to the issue is to address (that is to say, explain) the situation in the Linux#Linux_and_the_GNU_Project section. Leave the intro alone.  As a matter of popular folk taxonomy it's being called Linux, not GNU/Linux.  I say allow that naming convention to stick and make the article informative enough (which is the whole point of this enterprise anyway) to explain the integral part played by the GNU project. -Tjkiesel 20:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't care about merits of a picture of rms or linus in an article that talks about linux and not rms or linus. The textual description is correct. --hdante 21:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view