Talk:Linux/Archive 7

message: i know this failed as a Wikipedia:Featured article, but i think it might be good enough as a Wikipedia:Good article.  what do others think? JoeSmack Talk 17:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reasonably well-written now but the focus is still all wrong in the second half, which still reads like subtle advocacy. There is very little on the current use of Linux on servers or how it came to be adopted in this manner; nothing on the history of distros; still too much about how modern desktop distros match up to Windows. That said, since its failed FA attempt the article has been massively improved, so I dare say it'd succeed. Chris Cunningham 11:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above analysis :). I had a little proposal in the last archive, but I'm sure someone (else) can think of a better direction for the second half as well. RN 20:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree, the second half of the article is sort of random it has lots of headings and no direction. I think if the second half were re written it would be better.
Cities started in their downtown, that's the kernel.  Name of city X should not change because someone built a housing area named RoyalHouses.  Then an industrial area named TheEagle.  If the GNU/Linux reasoning is followed, then the city X should be called X/RoyalHouses/TheEagle.  This recent link might provide some light when seen through the eyes of the one who built the city's core. Energiza 06:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *Energiza, your example is really unrelated. Sorry to rain on your parade, but the OS was not built around the kernel. Get the facts, and get them right. The kernel is not the downtown of your example. The proper example would be: Foundation X (say, the FSF, Stallman) dreams up a city where all the citizens will be happy and free, and plans to call it "Freedom City" (say, GNU). They carefully list all that has to be made (residential areas, public transport, sewers, communication...), and start to work on each and every detail. With time, they realize that their "city" lacks a proper Town Hall structure (kernel), something they had thought of, but were not able to achieve. Now a clever Finish student (say, Torvalds), writes a book about Town Hall Organization for Dummies, and hands it down freely. The fate wants that this student calls his book "Organizatrix", and that the name is catchy. Now, would you think that the proper name of the finished city should be "Freedom City" (GNU), or rather "Organizatrix" (Linux)? Clearly, the name "Linux" has caught on, and I do not opose to its use, for pragmatism, and for its metonymic value. But don't make false metaphores, and try to redo the history, please. Isilanes 09:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  good article? 

message: I found this article Real time Linux clinking on "random article".  It's new, and it's an orphan (nothing links in to it).  I don't know anything about Linux, so I don't know if it should be expanded or merged. Thatcher131 (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was originally linked from here but was orphaned on accounts of being a non-subject. If anything constructive can be drawn from it (quite possible a single line on the matter) it should be added and then the stub should be deleted. Chris Cunningham 09:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking at it, there's nothing that can be used in this article. It'd be better merged with the linux kernel article. Chris Cunningham 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Real time Linux 

message: I dont understand what the to-do list means by that. Do they need server space donated??? Aceofspades 02:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably meant: Add more information about Linux usage on servers. —Centrx→talk • 21:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increase Space For Server? 

message: I removed this  - the full text was
:The TCO (total cost of ownership) of varies from distribution to distribution. IBM analysts recently demonstrated that TCO of Linux is lower in some cases than Windows.
Which is one unreferenced sentence followed by another providing one POV on a controversial issue - (also, IBM analysists? That's like quoting Microsoft on the TCO of Windows...). Anyway, I'm really not sure if this is the appropriate article to get into a huge TCO debate... RN 21:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TCO doesn't seem to apply to desktop users, it is usually used only for enterprise environment. -- AdrianTM 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That gives a (unrelated) passing idea of splitting this article into three sections - history, usage on a desktop, and enterprise... RN 21:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make sense since there is a big difference between home computing and enterprise needs, usage and adoption. -- AdrianTM 21:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TCO section 

message: Don't take these as criticisms of Linux, just of the article.
# The Linus picture is large. Obnoxiously large. One might even say offensively and obnoxiously large.
#:You can change it yourself to be as big as you deem fit. -- AdrianTM 21:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2. I changed that to "standard compiler on Linux" since that seems more apropriate and that's the info on GCC article too. Hope that's OK. -- AdrianTM 18:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've further changed it a bit to define GCC. I hope that's okay. I realize GCC is a more common name anyway, so I didn't do this without reservation. Feel free to change it back if it offends you. -- Steven Fisher 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a tad worrying that this is the most constructive contribution to the article itself that the talk page has produced in weeks... :) Chris Cunningham 23:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah. This talk page is why I was afraid to just make the changes to the article. -- Steven Fisher 06:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't promote  original research on Wikipedia articles, also it's useful to sign in when you add comments in Talk pages, otherwise people will pretty much consider it spam. -- AdrianTM 17:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few criticisms