Talk:Linux/Archive 16

message: We've had a message to OTRS stating that this article has attack information in it.  I can't see it myself, but if people would not mind giving the article the once over, that would be good.  Thanks, Guy (Help!) 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what OTRS is.  Can you ask for clarification and give a link to the complaint?  I don't know of any specific attack info in the article and I'm monitoring it.  Chris Pickett 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fact check 

message: The following sentences (in the intro) make it sound like Linux kernal developers began working on other enthusiasts after 1991:
"Most development from 1984 to 1991 was done by the GNU project. After 1991, the Linux kernel developers began working on it as well as other enthusiasts."
This can't possibly be what it means???  I am unfamiliar with this subject but I assume "the GNU project" refers to a group of people who were working on developing Linux since 1984, and that "Linux kernal developers" refers to another group of people who began working on Linux after 1991.  "Other enthusiasts" is then probably a catch-all phrase for some people who are neither associated with "the GNU project" nor with "Linux kernal developers", but who nevertheless began working on Linux after 1991.  Is this correct?  Are the "other enthusiasts" important enough to keep in this introduction?  If the sentence read "After 1991, other enthusiasts, among them the Linux kernel developers, began working on it as well," would that place too much emphasis on the "other enthusiasts"?  216.165.237.51 00:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll fix it, thanks.  Chris Pickett 01:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is nothing particular about 1991 with respect to people other than Linux kernel developers.  The X Window System is an example of work done by "other enthusiasts" and its development definitely did not start only after 1991.  80.233.255.7 02:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, my opinion is that the lead needs to be rewritten entirely at some point... and before that happens, X needs be accounted for both in the lead and the history sections, and possibly TeX and other major pieces of the GNU system (after all, you can't really claim that "the GNU project was working on X", even though it's an official part of GNU).  Did anything come from BSD?  Chris Pickett 03:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: working on other enthusiasts?

message: Market Share of ~3% is laughable. To get this based on "web browser traffic" is almost as laughable... Dare I say it, but the average Linux system is useless without internet access, and would be the way a large majority are ever able to get a copy. Ie... Linux computers, as a percentage, would be far more likely to have internet access than your "average" Windows system.
Edit it to something more realistic - like 1/30th of 1% ? (ok I made that up, but clearly - so did the person who wrote the article!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.135.103.46 (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Market share

message: The second paragraph mischaracterises the initial developers as "individual enthusiasts", and says nothing more about them.  Most of the initial developers were working for the GNU project to make a free software OS exist.  This seems important and there's no reason to gloss over it, but given recent debates about the three letter word, I thought I should ask here first if there are objections to adding a few words on this. Gronky 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn. Be Bold. "Discussing this" (i.e. having the same argument again for the fiftieth time in a year) on the talk page isn't going to improve the article. You haven't even suggested an alternative phrasing to discuss. Chris Cunningham 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm a few weeks late to this, but I'm removing most of this change.  Why?  Look at the facts:  Linux didn't start in the 1980s -- Linus Torvalds himself will tell you that.  GNU != Linux -- you can use the GNU tools on non-Linux systems (Mac OS X and Windows Vista, e.g.).  Linux != GNU -- you can use the Linux kernel in embedded environments and build your own userland from scratch, if you like.  Also, X Window System and TeX have nothing to do with Linux or GNU... they are cross-platform applications.   -/- Warren 08:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted your change.  If you'd like to write about non-GNU systems that use the Linux kernel, please tell us about them here, maybe it's important enough to have a section in the article.  Last time we had this discussion all that turned up was that one could use an alternative libc.  Otherwise, the lead should at least reflect what the history section says.  (It doesn't presently mention TeX in the history section.  In fact, I added the mention of TeX and X because Chris C. was complaining about too much GNU emphasis and I somewhat agree---those large pieces not directly developed by the FSF should be given their own mention.  TeX is needed for documentation, btw.)   Chris Pickett 16:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  As to your argument about cross-platform applications: almost everything on a Linux machine is a cross-platform application, except the kernel and distribution-specific stuff; this article just explains what common Linux operating systems are like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris Pickett (talk • contribs) 16:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initially worked on by ??? 

message: Does the history section need to include the information on GNU? To me, the way it reads is that GNU/Linux supporters are trying to improve their case by including information on it. While I  do agree GNU and Linux are closely related I personally don't think that the information on GNU in the history section belongs there, I do think that it needs to be looked at. Socerhed 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All this nonsense stems from the fact that this page is still named Linux and not GNU/Linux. There is already a page on Linux at Linux kernel. Can we please rename this page? --MarSch 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. The operating system has no official title as there is no authority in place to give it one. It thus goes by a variety of names, of which "Linux" is by far the most common. A very, very vocal minority has drunk the kool-aid and is willing to endlessly parrot the position that collaborative software is named in some procedural manner (where the procedure is determined by the Free Software Foundation), but this is a minority position indeed and warrants little more than a footnote in the OS article. The counter-argument is that "all this nonsense" stems from the shameful manner by which the FSF has attempted to tack an Obnoxious Advertising Clause onto GNU, Chris Cunningham 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The argument isn't about naming or trying to say that GNU isn't important to Linux, its whether or not GNU needs to be included in the history in the context that it currently is. The way that the section currently reads leads the reader to think that Linux came about because of GNU. The Linux kernel wasn't made for GNU. The Linux idea had nothing to do with GNU. GNU had nothing to do with the Linux kernel. They are two separate things. Go look at Apple, UNIX is mentioned 3 times. This article is not about GNU. Want to put a link? Sure, but I mean really this is crazy, Linux is Linux and GNU is GNU. People act like GNU was THE ONLY source that Linux had to pull from. HELLO. It was the 90's, there were programmers coming out of God's ass and they were just as capable of making programs. Besides its hard enough to explain Linux anyways, I don't even want to try to explain GNU. Socerhed 04:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * "The way that the section currently reads leads the reader to think that Linux came about because of GNU. The Linux kernel wasn't made for GNU.". This is the article about an OS referred to as "Linux". For comments about Linux (kernel), please go to ... yes, you guessed it: Linux (kernel). The creation of the Linux kernel has little to do with the FSF or the GNU movement, yes. They (GNU OS and Linux kernel) are two different things. However, the Linux OS comes from the inclusion of the Linux kernel into the GNU framework, when this synergy generated a complete OS. Either you accept that, or you support dropping "Linux" as a correct name for the OS this article refers to, which is the OS steming from that cooperation. — Isilanes 13:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I second this.  Components such as X and TeX should be more represented.  Although this needs to be done a bit carefully.  Currently, representation of X has been added by giving it equal rank with GNU, which ignores the size and intent of X's contribution.  By "intent", I mean that like TeX and Linux kernel, the (two) X developers were not trying to make an OS exist.  X just accidentally later became useful in the creation of an OS.  But that's getting into details.  The more important point is that there is general disproportion in the article, and fixing that includes adding more detailed discussion of components such as X and TeX. Gronky 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about if we try and separate technical contributions and philosophical/organizational/licence/legal ones?  This seems like a pretty clear dividing line.  Then again, it might be difficult to do properly.  Also, the second category probably pertains more to History of FOSS, and we have a huge Philosophy section already.  Chris Pickett 01:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From a technical contribution angle, as well as contributing N lines of source code, GNU also put work into design of the OS.  Also, separating the other angles from the whole might indeed be difficult.  Imagine trying to describe Windows Vista without mentioning Microsoft - think of the difficulty and of the quality of article/intro it would produce.  The situation is not completely analogous, but both Windows Vista and GNU+Linux did have organisations backing them, both did have a legal support structures, both did have licences drafted and enforced, and both did have philosophies, and neither would be here today without them.  ...but we're getting to far into article theory again. Gronky 04:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All I meant was to discuss them more or less independently of each other, but in the same section, say using "Technical" and "Social" subsections.  Maybe it really is a bad idea.  (btw, I think LOC is a terrible metric; good code has had lots ripped out of it.) Chris Pickett 05:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOC is indeed a bad metric.  It ranks OpenOffice.org as a bigger contribution than the Linux kernel or Glibc or probably GCC etc. Gronky 12:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I personally would like to see mention of Busybox.  The info I found suggested that it started in 1996 as an installer for Debian and grew from there.  Would you like to do some research and write a bit about non-GNU embedded Linux operating systems for us?  I would really like to see that added.  By the way, I'm not one of the "GNU/Linux" pushers but the fact remains that GNU/TeX/X and other pieces of software are an important parts of Linux desktop and server operating systems.  As far as I am aware these came before embedded Linux systems.  Chris Pickett 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BusyBox?  How does BusyBox define this OS? Gronky 12:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that Busybox and uClibc can apparently be used instead of the GNU userland in embedded Linux systems, and the systems (apparently) look about as much like GNU as BSD does.  Since (it appears, and seems natural) that there are a LOT of embedded devices sold that use the Linux kernel but really not that much of GNU, where do they get discussed?  In this article?  Or do we put a disambiguation clause at the top to clarify the split?  I've seen this complaint a couple of times now, from Warrens here and from Hans (in archive 15).  There is a distro called TinyLinux that uses them, and it looks like a lot of times there isn't really a "distro" per se but in fact the manufacturer of the device rolls the OS from scratch.  I would like the following things need to be discussed in the lead and history sections: GNU, X, embedded Linux, and desktop/server Linux (a.k.a. GNU/Linux).  Since the lead is so volatile I'll just try to get the rest of the article straightened out first.  Chris Pickett 15:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then again, the lead is less cluttered as it stands.  Chris Pickett 15:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I wasn't suggesting that development of the OS stemmed from X or TeX, I'm just saying those packages deserve a mention.  Development of the OS stems from the GNU project, but for completeness, it's worth mentioning that GNU didn't write everything, and that the OS now incorporates third-party packages.  Incorporating some, such as X, TeX, were part of the original plan.  And the incorporation of others, such as Linux kernel, were by unforseen circumstance. Gronky 12:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Some of the citations in the article are cited like Linux Usability Report v1.01.  Convert these over using citation templates. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 20:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know of a way to add full cite templates that doesn't clutter up the body text OR require separate Notes and References sections like Finnish Civil War?  Chris Pickett 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm unaware of any way to do that, but if you find a way, let me know.  -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 06:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation consistency and style 

message: I agree with Warrens that this article is biased towards Linux desktop and server operating systems.  I found a reference to embedded Linux operating systems and distributions that seems to be pretty comprehensive.   I think perhaps the reason we are ignorant of these operating systems is that we are used to using Linux desktops and servers.  Some of the operating systems are based on desktop/server distributions, others are open source and rolled from scratch, and yet others appear not to be open source in any significant way.  Since there is overlap in some cases, it's even more confusing.  The main point is that these devices and the OS they run are significant and worth covering.  Unfortunately I don't know enough about them to do it properly.  Perhaps an early embedded Linux subsection would suffice, with a clarification that the rest of this article talks about the OS as installable on desktops and servers?  Chris Pickett 18:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Embedded Linux has its own article. Server Linux doesn't. I appreciate your attempt to increase the scope of this article, but it can't be all-encompassing. Chris Cunningham 09:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embedded Linux