Talk:Debian/Archive 1

message: On http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#TOCCommercial it states:
Please don't use ``commercial as a synonym for ``non-free. That confuses two entirely different issues.
In the first paragraph the article seems to use ``non-commercial as a synonym for ``free. Debian doesnt realy have to be non comercial - you can happily charge money for Debain and many commercial distros are based on it. This is a classic confusion with Linux but fairly obviously is false, hence the multitude of commercial linux distros --Htaccess
:I agree with you, that "non-commercial" != "free". The core of Debian is non-commercial and free that's why I added the word "free" to the first sentence. Hope this is o.k. with you. --mkrohn 15:38 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::Yup - that makes sense, its pretty clear what it is now, the only issue is that the link to free software includes both free beer and free speech, but thats quite good anyway - as the reader will then understand the difference and probably then realise that Debian is free in both senses. --Htaccess
:::Non-commercial didn't really make sense there, the pipe link to Free software works fine. --Shallot 00:01, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial/non-free 

message: 12:56, 26 Aug 2004 68.74.167.117 (Added make-up word "Debianize" -- gabrielinux@softhome.net)
*To "[debianize|debianize]:"  To fulfill Debian's mission, or to install or experiment with Debian.  ([Debianized]) Said of a machine that runs a Debian-based system, or a person who is very much into Debian.
This is not a place for just-invented words, especially if they don't match the actual most common use in Debian -- to equip an upstream source package with Debian-related stuff so that it can build a (Debian-compliant) .deb. --Joy [shallot] 12:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism: "debianize" 

message: In response to the most recent edit by Shallot, I erred because I meant to include the category Linux distributions in the category Operating systems, but forgot. If this had been done, the Debian article inherits the categorization of operating system because it is in the category Linux distributions. With categories, only the most specific categorization should be specified in the article.
Now that I think about it more though, this whole categories business may need some discussion with regard to Linux, GNU/Linux, and distributions. The most pertinent question here might be whether "Linux distributions" should be in category Operating systems. Another might be whether all the Linux distributions should instead be categorized as GNU/Linux distributions. Another might be whether there should be a general category GNU/Linux for all things Linux, with the category Linux being only for kernel-related items. Alternatively, Linux might be the larger category with only free-software- and GNU-related items in GNU/Linux. And so forth... --Centrx 20:32, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor subcategorized the operating system category in the meantime it seems. I guess it's okay now. --Shallot 12:25, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: === (Contested -- Jul 1) Debian  ===
I'd like to nominate this article since it contains a fair amount of detail and information on the subject -- certainly more than I would have expected. --pne 11:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article candidacy (not promoted) 

message: I'd like to nominate this article since it contains a fair amount of detail and information on the subject -- certainly more than I would have expected. --pne 11:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Contested -- Jul 1) [[Debian]]  

message: Is "sid" actually a "back-formation"? Why doesn't the article refer to it as a backronym? Mickeyreiss 17:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not really. I've actually never heard of these "some people" saying that until I read this on Wikipedia! It's a too frivolous piece of half-information to be that high up in the article. --Shallot 13:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that sounds like an argument. So I just asked Joey from the Debian Project about the frequency of this expansion. He shares my opinion: In his opinion, Wikipedia should list it as "inofficial expand of the codename sid". I'll try to find a place not so high up in the article. --XTaran 14:54, 01 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Anyone knows how to make footnotes a better way? Haven't found any special Wiki markup for them, I just used ==Footnotes== and [1]</nowiki>, which looks quite ugly but at least works. --XTaran 19:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  sid as backronym 

message: : The effort to combine the GNU-based userland with BSD kernels is also controversial among some of the developers of the BSD systems, who do not consider their kernel to be a separable component from the userland.
The original wording implied that they all don't like it. I'd like to see some quotes or discussions, we need to quantify this statement. --Joy [shallot] 11:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, isn't the opposition also based on the fact it's the GNU system (with GPL and all) that is being integrated with the BSD kernels? --Joy [shallot] 11:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BSD criticisms 

message: I really don't think we need silly little pages for each release, and titled after the codename at that. Unless someone actually adds some non-generic content to them, I'm going to nominate them for deletion.
Another angle to this issue would be the fact that we redirect Debian GNU/Linux here. If we split off the page about the project and about the software, we could easily and logically redirect the release names over to that page. However, this would beg the question - where to redirect the term "Debian" itself, to the project or to the software? --Joy [shallot] 11:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's get rid of those pages again. --Kaare 19:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages for individual releases 

message: the links in section Distributions based on Debian aren't external per say...
--[Pascal D.] 24.202.172.138 20:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just moved the sub-section to See Also.  It seems like it might fit there better.  Izogi 22:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distributions based on Debian (externals links) 

message: Shouldn’t it be Debian GNU/Linux?
: Not necesarily, as most people searching or browsing are likely to type “Debian”, so it’s sensible to use that as a name. Notice however that Debian GNU/Linux would also show the same page. — (drini’s page|☎) 10:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the debian project doesn’t just make Debian GNU/Linux, it also produces Debian GNU/Hurd, Debian GNU/NetBSD and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD. —ajdlinux 20:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, whether it should be Linux or GNU/Linux is a debated issue, both with important characters argumentating it. Stallman likes GNU/Linux, Linus likes just Linux. This isn't getting settled soon, so I think it's probably best if Wikipedia doesn't take a stance in this debate by naming their articles to any of either. However, an argument for using Linux in article names rather than GNU/Linux the fact it's more well-known. --Michiel Sikma 20:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no contest in this case.  The full name of the distribution is "Debian GNU/Linux".  According to Debian's about page, "the system we have created is called Debian GNU/Linux, or Debian for short".  I think that's an argument that Debian GNU/Linux is the more proper name, although it does exclude the other kernels. --Dylan Thurston 01:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'system' being referred to there is obviously the Linux one, though, and this page is really referring more to the project ('Debian Project') than the Linux system specifically, in my opinion. --Fuzzie (talk) 03:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the Article 

message: What is a Debian package?
:A Debian package is used to install a program or library or something else on a Debian box. The extension is .deb. It is extracted and installed with dpkg or apt/aptitude. It's similar to an installer on Windows. Cookiecaper 23:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  debian packages 

message: Debian has an absolutely gorgeous logo. I'm saying that as graphic designer. There needs to be some way to add a large thumbnail of the logo in the article somewhere. I decided to put one on a left floater in the beginning paragraph, but I think it's best to find a better place for it. --Michiel Sikma 20:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: I read once that there were two Debian logos- one of just the magic smoke, which could be freely used, and the one of the genie bottle with the magic smoke, which was official and trademarked. Should we have the official one instead of the purely smoke one? --maru   (talk)  contribs 20:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official logo 

message: Debian has always gone out of its way to call itself a GNU/Linux distribution and not a Linux distribution. That's how it should be represented on this page. Thanks to those that reverted the change in question. —mako 23:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "GNU/Linux" versus "Linux" 

message: Centrx deleted some stuff about the GFDL. I think it is worth mentioning- I remember that the Emacs people were quite annoyed when the manual was reclassified as nonfree. --maru   (talk)  contribs 00:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you describe it here, this sounds more like simply being irritated, and temporarily so, possibly at having to do a little extra work, rather than a coherent rational criticism of Debian. It is also, as you say, more of a reclassification into the non-free section than a change that significantly affects a user. Anyone can still install the documentation, using apt. Anyway, I have slightly altered so that it reads that "some software and documentation" is not included in the official repository, and it is already mentioned at the bottom of the section that invariant documentation is excluded from the main archive. ~ Centrx 03:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL criticism 

message: According to Talk:Debian Project, the article Debian Project, which was merged into the article Debian, contained material from http://www.debian.org/intro/about. http://www.debian.org/intro/about is not GFDLed. Does that mean there are likely to be copyvios in the article Debian or is it likely it's all rewritten and paraphrased enough now? I have not checked personally, but if anyone else checks, it would be great if they could let others know on this talk page. Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk to me 17:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading over the copyrighted text there, and knowing the text of the Debian article here fairly well—and having glanced through the article again right now, I do not think that any of the copyrighted text has been duplicated. Note also that it does not appear that any of that text was actually merged in any of the edits in May 2004; it was likely just redirected with no merging because all of the information was already in the article in some form or another. - Centrx 04:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio from old [[Debian Project]]? 

message: Is APT actually the package manager?  I was under the impression dpkg was the package manager, and apt was a front-end around it.  The manpage for dpkg does include the phrase "package manager". BirdbrainedPhoenix 17:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you are reading this from the poorly designed infobox at the top. dpkg is what manipulates the DEB format and actually installs, upgrades, and removes packages, but apt is so common and almost invariably used all the time, and it is something that is used to "manage packages". It is a nebulous term that is only found in the infobox, an item which I am going to remove now because it also isn't so important as to be at the top of an encyclopedia article. -- Centrx 22:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Package Manager? 

message: I've tried to reword some awkwardness in the lead. Part of this akwardness seems to come from the need to say that it's a flavor of Linux, even though there is a version that uses the Hurd kernel. Since only a very tiny percentage of users are running Hurd, it seems inappropriate to me to twist the lead into contortions just in order to allow for that fact. I've left in the GNU/Linux reference, but it also seems silly to me. Realistically, almost everyone just calls it Linux, and I think it's sufficient to mention in the lead that it uses a lot of GNU utilities.--24.52.254.62 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, the official name of the Debian system is "Debian GNU/Linux" —Centrx→talk 23:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: lead

message: I wanted to see what sort of kernel does Debian use and didn't find the info in the article. Maybe it should be put in as it is, in my anonymous opinion, relevant to the entry.
:Debian is using patched kernels 213.10.147.18 19:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Custom or Vanilla Kernel

message: I was hoping to find some hints for figuring out which version of Debian I am running.  If anyone knows how to do that, it would be helpful. 
: Wikipedia isn't the right place to ask such questions, but one way to get the information is to run cat /etc/debian_version in a shell. - Kaare 18:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding out Debian version number 

message: Okay, I just now noticed the Wiki article on individual releases of Debian (Sarge, testing, unstable, experimental, etc.) and I'm wondering - why do these releases need articles?  Most of these articles are just stubs talking about when each of these versions were released and what architectures it supports. Additionally, no other Linux distribution has pages on it's individual releases (and an article on the Dapper Drake release of Ubuntu was redirected to the article of the distro), so what makes Debian's releases so special that they get articles, and say, Fedora Core 6 and SUSE 10.1 don't? These articles aren't really necessary. NeoChaosX  [talk | contribs] 23:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't warranted at all. Feel free to merge them or simply redirect if there is nothing to merge. —Centrx→talk • 23:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected most of them. The only article I merged any information from was Oldstable, all the other articles were already explained in this article. NeoChaosX  [talk | contribs] 01:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate articles for Debian releases - necessary?