Talk:Linux/Archive 18

message: Hi, when I changed the info box at the top of the page to reflect the fact that the (GNU/)Linux operating system contains software under licences other than the GNU GPL, it was changed back, with the reason given being that the info box is just for the kernel, rather than the whole operating system. Why is that? Surely as the article is about the whole system, the information in that box should be as well? Guyjohnston 19:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Infoboxes are meant to be at-a-glance guides. The GPL is the lowest common denominator for most distros. Chris Cunningham 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough that we don't want it to be too confusing. However, I've added "and others" to be more accurate by showing that the system contains some non-GPLed software, without adding a lot of confusion. Guyjohnston 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, most linux distros contain software that is under non gpl compatible free software licenses, generally variants of 4 clause BSD, also MPL and variants (though the main mozilla code has now been relicensed bugzilla and various other projects using MPL or MPL like licenses have not). Plugwash 14:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be best if this discussion took place on Template talk:Linux. Gronky 14:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info box only for the kernel? 

message: I don't see any evidence that the primary difference between Linux and other contemporary systems is that Linux is free software. After all, there are other contemporary free-software OSes that differ remarkably from Linux, such as the BSDs -- or to go further afoot, Atheos or Haiku. Likewise there are other systems that are Unix-like but not free, such as Mac OS X.
It is original research to call free software the primary difference between Linux and other systems. --FOo 04:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "other popular contemporary operating systems" I'm sure you don't claim that Atheos or Haiku are popular (even BSD is kind of dubious in that category. This paragraph compares Linux with Windows and possible Mac OS x (which is not pure BSD and has proprietary stuff AFAIK) not with Atheos and Haiku... and I think it's a pretty defining difference. That being said I'm fine with "one of the difference", maybe it would be better "one important difference" but that's a POV (but I'm sure we can find enough references for it)  -- AdrianTM 05:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. --FOo 06:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy section 

message: This has been tried before and met with resistance (mostly due to conflicting ideas about where the article should be heading), but I think it's time to give it another go. The last half still needs a lot of work on direction (including killing a lot of editorialising), but I think the general ordering is better this way (moving more important things up and more impact-based things to the end). Chris Cunningham 09:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy reordering 

message: This was changed a while back, primarily because while GNU technically predates Linux this isn't actually an article on GNU. What's the current consensus on this? Chris Cunningham 22:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that this isn't an article about GNU, but it's not an article about Linux, the kernel, either. It's an article about the complete operating system made from combining some of the GNU components with Linux and other software. Therefore, I think the history section about when the different parts were written should be in chronological order. Guyjohnston 14:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cool. In that case I think we should make some effort to provide a very brief summary of what people were doing writing Unices in the first place. I've added some placeholder text. Chris Cunningham 18:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep sounds like a good idea. I seem to remember reading that X and Latex were two pieces of free software which were available and useful to the GNU developers when they started, so it might be worth mentioning them near the beginning. Guyjohnston 01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History ordering 

message: Seriously, do we need to go into so much detail about the name in the intro? It's only two short sections until we get a decent elaboration on it. I'd prefer it if this article had as little duplication as possible and have worked to that effect so far. Chris Cunningham 18:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why you object against an Wikipedia link that is highly pertinent to the naming issue. -- AdrianTM 18:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's duplicate information which is of little importance to those readers who don't have to read FSF press statements very often. It's explained in detail, with a link, only slightly further down the article. Chris Cunningham 20:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy stuff in the intro 

message: I think this stuff really belongs in its own section:
# Right now it's in three or four places. There's some duplication in licensing because of this.
# It allows it to be presented as a complete section with subheaders. Right now because of the splitting, it's unevenly-weighted.
# It really forms the backbone of the majority of substantial (i.e. referenced) criticism of Linux, which gives the article more of an appearance of objectivity than having a section called "criticism" which is ripe for random trolling.
The issue is what to call it. "Intellectual property" is going to cause some free software people to want to chew tinfoil. I personally can't think of a better term for that abstract collection of legal stuff surrounding code, but thought I'd try asking. Chris Cunningham 18:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a hard one. Wikipedia has to appeal to the masses not RMS so I think "Intellectual property" is an OK term for all of Copyright, Patents, DRM, Licensing etc. So far the "Intellectual property" regime of Linux is working very well with no substantiated claims of copyright violation, no substantiated claims of patent violation and no challenges to the licensing regime (i.e. GPL) even though there has been much criticism by competitors but none of the mud has stuck. In the highly litigious world of software and technology this is an excellent record. (Slackware -> Rehdhat -> Mandrake/Mandriva -> Ubuntu user and very small part-time Open Source coder :) Ttiotsw 12:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP stuff (copyright, trademark, naming controversy etc) 

message: In the world of compilers and computers self-hosting is the biggest hurdle in maturity after you have a clean compile. It is an especially important issue with Free (as in Freedom) software as it means you are not dependant on other software (a distinction that closed-source software based systems never really care about). From the Linux (kernel) article it says, 
:"In December 1991, Linux 0.11 was released. This version was the first to be self-hosted - Linux 0.11 could be compiled by a computer running Linux 0.11." 
Given it used the GNU tools too (which could be compiled using GNU tools + Linux 0.11) this is probably the first date that you could say that the Linux-as-a-computer-OS existed as a separate entity i.e. the date it cut the umbilical from Minix. OK to add (the bit in quotes indented above) ?. Ttiotsw 08:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: duplication is badbadbad. --MarSch 10:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...yes but (WP:PAPER ) until that December date there was no real "Linux OS" per se as it still needed MINIX. The release of the kernel is an important date but more important is when it became self-sufficient from what it bootstrapped itself from. Ttiotsw 11:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding self-hosting date to intro ?. 

message: Linux is not an operating system. It is a kernel. Why does it say it is an operating system? --212.247.27.91 14:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do us a favor and read the archives. -- AdrianTM 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What date? --212.247.27.197 13:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any. -- AdrianTM 13:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the archives contain this discussion. I think, actually, that most of the discussion has been about this, and the GNU thing.-Localzuk(talk) 14:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? They are documented - in the archives.-Localzuk(talk) 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linux is not an operating system

message: The article states that there are far less games for Linux than for Mac OS X. Is that correct? (IANA proffesional, but this looks suspicious.) 
193.171.249.108 09:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it depends on what it is using as its context. Is it meaning 'modern, commercially released games' then it is likely true. But if it includes hobby games and freeware I would say not. It needs a source either way.-Localzuk(talk) 09:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Games