Talk:Linux/Archive 31

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

→

Making the Linux page shorter and simpler

I've noticed there's a lot of unnecessary and confusing paragraphs in the Linux page. These could be moved into separate articles or worded better. Here's a very simple overview and examples of how we could reword things:

Top of page

Linux (explain how it's pronounced) is a generic term referring to any operating system that uses the Linux kernel (one simple sentence explaining what a kernel is, in brackets). Any operating system which uses the Linux kernel is called a Linux distribution (sometimes the shorter word “distro” is used instead). Explain why there are so many distributions of Linux, as this can be very confusing to anyone who's heard of “Linux” and soon finds out that “Linux” turns into lots of different names like Ubuntu, Red Hat, Mandriva and so on.

1. History.

Linux is derived from Unix. Linux is referred to as being “Unix-like”.

2. Design.

This section is confusing and too long.

3. Development.

This is another confusing and long section. Why not make a separate article on Linux development and briefly describe Linux development on the Linux page? This will make the Linux page MUCH shorter.

4. Uses

The second part of this section starts with a link to Desktop Linux, but the section goes into too much depth about desktop Linux - isn't that the purpose of the link to the desktop Linux page? This part would be easier to read if it were made much shorter.

Servers, mainframes and supercomputers

Not too bad. It would probably be better if we remove the paragraph that starts “Linux distributions are the cornerstone of the LAMP server-software combination”.

Embedded devices

I like the simplicity of the first sentence in this part.

5. Copyright and naming

Why the mention of “Most of the code (71%) was written in the C programming language” in a section that's meant to be about “Copyright and naming”? Any wonder why the Linux page is confusing and too long?

Ignoring 6 – 8.

9. External links

Nobody seems to agree on external links. About 2 or 4 links for helping newbies would be excellent, but nobody likes that idea!

I'm not going to debate this; I'm just providing ideas to simplify and shorten the Linux page. I'm not saying how it should be written, just ideas and basic examples only. TurboForce (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Newbie vs tech talk.

Instead of just directing readers to external websites for basic Linux information, I hope we can explain things a bit more clearly in the article.

For any newbie, I can imagine Linux does seem very fragmented e.g. talking about "Linux" mentions things like: the Linux kernel, distributions, desktop environments such as GNOME, KDE and Xfce, the X Window System etc. So "Linux" 'becomes' many things. If we talk about Windows, a user probably thinks about one entity and Windows being installed on personal computers only (which isn't true of course lol).

Please explain (in plain English):

how and why Linux can run on different types of computers, not just personal computers;
what a Linux distribution is;
why there are many Linux distributions;
why there are different desktop environments (rather than just explaining what a desktop environment is e.g. GNOME);
what the Linux kernel is and what it does - a basic explanation is fine.
how to pronounce Linux demonstrated by Linus himself David Marshall B.Ed. (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of a page full of newbie computer advice, from the Which? website, with lots of newbie advice: Computing Which? page.

Not forgetting, Linux is used as an operating system and readers are highly likely to know that Microsoft Windows is an example of an operating system. In fact, I'm sure most newbies reading the article are Windows users already and they've likely seen or heard Linux mentioned somewhere. Some netbooks have Linux as an option and the word "Linux" could make the potential buyer inquisitive and turn to Wikipedia for help. TurboForce (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Why there are so many animals and plants in the world? One animal and one plant would suffice. Why there are so many car models? One car model would be enough. I'm not sure that nonsense questions need answers in Wikipedia. man with one red shoe 00:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah except that in biology there are serious answers to those questions with regard to adaptation, biodiversity and survival. I think serious answers could be made to the same questions in Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt, besides we are not here to do original research, while biodiversity is a research object of Biology, diversity of products is not the object of any science (except Marketing probably). I don't see questions like these in the articles about cars, cellphones, etc. It's a simple fact of life and "newbies" need to grow up and understand it. man with one red shoe 02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think those questions need answers as well. Also, please stop using Windows as a basis for explaining and comparing. Its popularity does not matter. The article should not be written with Windows in mind. It should be generic.

With Evolution then it was decided that there could be an Introduction_to_evolution article. At the top of the Evolution article in the disambiguation bits it says "For a generally accessible and less technical introduction to the topic, see Introduction to evolution. so how about a new article For a generally accessible and less technical introduction to the topic, see Introduction to linux. ? This shouldn't be a howto but address how, why, what etc in a more introductory manner is a good idea. Ttiotsw (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but that's not the angle that the original poster was coming from. I don't think that assuming that the reader is familiar with Microsoft Windows and setting this article up specifically to show the difference between Linux and Windows is necessary. As for the actual points raised, I think that the article does an adequate (if not great) job of covering points 1 and 2 already, fudges the answers to 3 and 4 (basically by saying that Linux is used for lots of different purposes and that there are different distros to cover that) and only really does a poor job with 5 (that section has been a stub since it was started). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's too easy to become so immersed into something, you forget what's on the surface - what the non-experts see. As for the statement from the "man with one red shoe", newbies don't need to grow up and understand it, how can they understand something that appears to them as being highly technical? Why do you think they would turn to Wikipedia for help? I know plenty of people who become quickly frustrated with computers, even to perform basic tasks. In today's society, where so many people are ungrateful and offended by most things, I'm getting the impression that this discussion room is turning into a troll? It can't be that difficult to explain Linux in plain English? Obviously nobody cares about newbies except me; maybe I should spend ages re-writing the Linux article, if nobody else will do it? However, I'm sure if I did that then somebody would not like it and simply undo my editing. TurboForce (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as saying "Obviously nobody cares about newbies except me". I brought your external links issue here and even managed to get some links into the article to help make up for the deficiencies in the article. I have only been using Linux myself for two years and have a lot to learn, too. That said I have written much elsewhere about my experiences in the hopes of helping those who follow - I even got one article published so far! I agree with you that the article needs to better explain the basics for those with no a priori knowledge, because that is the role of an encyclopedia. The article should not read like a computing science technical journal article. It needs work and you have identified many areas where that work can begin. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"why there are many Linux distributions" the answer is simple everybody who wants to make a distribution can do it. If there are 500 or so companies and people who want to make distributions then there are going to be 500 distributions, they don't even need "market" (demand) it's enough to want to release a distribution, if you want you can do it yourself. Same for desktop environments, nobody can stop people from programing and if they have different ideas about how a DE should look like and work then they will come up with another desktop environment. Some company/people might use one because it fits their needs (and license preferences) other people might use other desktop environment... Now, how do you want to present this as "info"? Basically there are many reason people made new distros and desktop environments: because they enjoy it, because they wanted different features, because they wanted to use different technology, because they wanted to use a different license, because they could, because they wanted fame, and so on. Why don't car companies make only one model? Why there is more than one car making company? man with one red shoe 16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why there is more than one text editor? How come nobody asks that? man with one red shoe 16:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Why there are so many... ?" is not question, it's a frustration, and it actually comes from "What should I pick?" This article is not here to help people pick distros or desktop environments (also, Wikipedia is here to convey information not to address frustrations). BTW, the short answer is "because they can" and is not only related to Linux, for example there are multiple text editors both in Linux and in Windows. There are multiple web browsers, why they are so many? Because people are free to write programs. man with one red shoe 16:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the article is not about which distribution to choose, but the term "distribution" in the Linux world needs explaining to unfamiliar readers. This discussion page explains what a "distribution" is, better than the article does lol!

In a "real life" situation, someone not familiar with computers is looking at new netbooks in a shop or catalogue, sees the word "Linux" mentioned and asks you "what is Linux"? How would you answer that question? I think we should have 2 Linux articles: this one with a basic explanation of Linux and its common terminology and a second one for users already familiar with Linux, with a title such as "Technical overview of Linux". TurboForce (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

However, Linux distribution is indeed linked in the body of the article, people who want more info about that should look in that particular article. There are already more articles about Linux (Linux, Linux distribution, Linux kernel, I don't see a need for such artificial separation in "Technical overview" and "common terminology" all the info you propose is already in one of these articles or doesn't have a place in neither. man with one red shoe 21:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

AAAAARRRRGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Okay, here's how we could word things in the article. Roughly speaking - and I'm keeping these examples very short - sorry if they may not be 100% accurate, but I'm a Linux newbie myself. We could say things like:

Linux is the name given to the key component of any operating system that uses something called the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel is the major part of any Linux-based operating system, which itself is called a distribution (or distro, the shorter term).

A Linux distribution refers to any version of Linux, which uses the Linux kernel, is customised and has different features, since Linux is free and allows anyone to modify it freely without restrictions (which is why there are many distributions available to choose from). Each distribution is intended for the type of computer it's running on, from a personal computer to a server and other types of computers, even some watches. Common distributions include: Ubuntu, Fedora etc. For desktop use (i.e. personal computers), commonly included programs in a distribution are: the office suite called OpenOffice.org, the Mozilla Firefox web browser...............

Desktop environments refer to the graphical components used by the mouse and keyboard (GUI). Linux distributions allow you to choose a desktop environment. The most common types are: GNOME, KDE and Xfce............

By now, you get an idea of how we could explain things simpler. If a newbie reads the basic information at the start and chooses not to read the whole article, at least they can grasp the basics of Linux and understand what it actually is and what the basic terms mean. If the reader would like to know more about a Linux term e.g. the Linux kernel, they can click on the link to read a separate article about it in more depth.

Hopefully I can get the ball rolling now. That's the best I can do and I'm sure it can be improved upon - but please keep it simple for newbies. Cheers. I apologise in advance if I've made any mistakes - it's now 1:08 a.m. where I am, and I need to save this. Thank you for reading. :) TurboForce (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking specifically about the article lede? The material there is already included in the article body, more or less in the form you've described. In fact, almost all of it is in the lede, with the curious exception of discussion about the concept of distributions. I'm not really seeing what you're suggesting here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that terms are explained in a simpler manner and I strongly recommend talking about basic Linux terminology at the beginning of the article. For example, under the "Development" section, the last two sentences read:

"A package manager such as Synaptic or YAST allows later package upgrades and installations. A distribution is responsible for the default configuration of the installed Linux kernel, general system security, and more generally integration of the different software packages into a coherent whole."

I don't think a newbie would understand that lol. To explain that easily, we could say "A package manager allows the user to install new programs easily......." The second sentence is like trying to read a newspaper whilst blindfolded, I'm finding it hard to understand the part that reads "and more generally integration of the different software packages into a coherent whole".

Let's get straight to the point: basic terms are best mentioned at the beginning of the article in plain English. Why have the explanation of a distributions under the "Development" section? People reading the article will probably assume that "Development" means developing software i.e. programming. I think the article needs major work. TurboForce (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence you pointed out is incomprehensible. Right, let's see if we can get a concrete plan together here. We need to mention distributions in the lede; and the package manager section needs reworded; ideally, the details can be left to the Linux distribution article and all we need say is that package managers can be used to install, remove and update all of a system's software from one central location. I'll get on that shortly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers dude. If we can, please put the basic terminology at the beginning and move the paragraphs about distributions away from the "Development" section, for the sake of clarity. Imagine users of personal computers at home are reading this article and they're wondering what "Linux" is and why it's now becoming a popular alternative to Windows. I believe the Linux page can easily cater for everyone, from total newbies to experts, just by rewording things a bit clearer. :) TurboForce (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to the position that "clear and understandable" means "concentrate on desktop usage"; once again, this is not a switcher guide, and desktop Linux is really the least important of the three basic uses (server, desktop, embedded) for Linux at this stage. We probably do want to have a separate section for distros at some point, but simply splitting the distro paragraph out of the Development section doesn't help with that at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not focus primarily on desktop usage. That said, Ubuntu alone is becoming very popular and is claimed to have millions of users, one being myself. :) TurboForce (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We need quantitative figures to back that up. I've yet to see anything more reliable than a DistroWatch chart (notorious for being gamed) which even shows the breakdown of current share of Linux distros. Any other suggestions? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ubuntu a minor player? Not outside the States "Worldwide, there are 13 million active Ubuntu users with use growing faster than any other distribution." Qv Google trends - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, Google trends is about hype rather than actual install base and the ZDNet article uses only Google Trends as a reference. The Economist article currently linked in the lede specifically mentioned Red Hat and Suse as being entrenched in the market already; the author then segues from that into his personal experiences with Ubuntu and gives his opinion that it is driving user adoption. Accurate sourcing has to drive the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very pleased with the improvements made to the beginning of the Linux page. It's now a bit simpler and explains terms like "Linux distribution". Many thanks for improving it. :) :) TurboForce (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The "userland" part of this sentence sounds weird, but I may just not be thinking of the term correctly: "The main supporting Userland in the form of system tools and libraries . . ." "Userland" is a security context/memory area/etc. The sentence seems to be missing words, but I can't figure out exactly what the author's intent was. 74.71.31.198 (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC) terry@bupkis.org.

Linux History Inconsistent

The account of the history of Linux given here is inconsistent with Linux kernel. The story in Linux kernel is the one I got from His Own Mouth. Must have been fall 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.140.48 (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

x86 and x86-64 - only 64-bit is mentioned.

In the "Supported platforms" section, why does it only mention x86-64 and not x86 too (i.e. 32-bit and lower x86 modes)? Could it be written like this: x86 and x86-64?

Note that searching for AMD 64 redirects you to the x86-64 page. TurboForce (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: clicking on "IA-32" redirects you to the x86 page anyway, however I've not seen "IA-32" in common use, instead I see "x86" is the more familiar term. TurboForce (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

If you download the 32-bit version of Ubuntu, the filename has "i386" in the filename. Is "i386" another term for referring to 32-bit x86? TurboForce (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've generally seen i386 used that way, and the i386 version of Ubuntu (which is my primary operating system) is in fact a 32-bit x86 version. --Evice (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

company/developer in infobox

Maybe to avoid the GNU/Linux debate it might be better just to say literally "Thousands of independent collaborators", as we aren't strictly talking about the kernel here. Although I do agree with the current wording more personally. Ryan Norton 12:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just putting "Various" would be more brief and concise. --Evice (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Linux" naming controversy

If there is such a naming controversy, then why is wiki being written from a Linus Trovalds POV instead of a more neutral stance?

It seems to me like Linux is a kernel not a Operating System(according to the definition of OS). Linux kernel is like a car engine, and GNU tools are the body/wheels/exhaust pipe/lights of a car. When GNU was being created, it was called GNU. When linux kernel was created it was called linux. The combination of those two should naturally be GNU+Linux or GNU/Linux. When 2 companies merge, eg. Activision and Blizzard, their company names fuse together to form a new one Activision Blizzard, not Blizzard, nor Activision, but Activision Blizzard.

General use of mainstream should not influence the naming convention deemed by the original creators. Richard Stallman wanted it to be GNU/Linux or GNU + Linux, while Linus Trovolds wanted it be just Linux. If there is any controversy, wiki should seek a neutral stance. As anyone can see, Trovolds is trying to take credit in the OS, where as Stallman is trying to form a name that has both aspects of original name. If Stallman had said he wanted the name to be GNU and nothing else, then the wiki's NPOV should naturally direct both linux and gnu to GNU/Linux and use both terms equally. However since Stallman had chipped in and decided to resolve the issue by claiming it as GNU/Linux, it is in Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines to follow through this resolution and name this article as GNU/Linux.

Moving on and accepting only Linux as a article name directly violates Wikipedia's NPOV stance since its advocating a single POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.110.152 (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest reading "Useful info from archives" at the top of the page as well as WP:DEADHORSE. Ryan Norton 01:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Stallman and GNU/Linux

I don't know if here is the right place for this.If it is not,please delete this.

The article about Linux(not about the Linux Kernel) does not mention Richard Stallman as an author of the "Linux operating system".I tried to correct this,but my correction was rejected.

Richard Stallman wrote,among others,the GNU C Compiler,GNU Emacs and many libraries that are very important for the "Linux operating system".He also started the GNU Project,gathering many developers.His contribution was/is very important for the "Linux operating system".

See also: Linux and GNU GNU/Linux FAQ GNU users how have never heard of GNU Why GNU/Linux? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliaskr (talk • contribs) 22:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the article, in the section Linux#GNU. If you look carefully at the infobox, it is about the Linux kernel, gives the Linux kernel version numbers, and credits the userland as GNU. As it is about the kernel, it is not the appropriate place to add Stallman, who is already given credit in the article text along with his picture. Scroll down and read the article before modifying it. Yworo (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Linux kernel has its own page,right?

The article is about the Linux operating system(GNU/Linux).The Linux operating system is the combination of the Linux kernel and the GNU operating system(without HURD,of course).So why not mention Richard Stallman,while mentioning Linus Torvalds?

I am not a computer expert,so if i am wrong,forgive me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliaskr (talk • contribs) 22:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This page is about Linux. But it's not about a specific version or distribution of Linux. The infobox on the page is about the Linux kernel, which Stallman did not contribute to. The infobox is about the Linux kernel and gives the kernel version numbers because it can't be about a specific "version" of Linux distribution, there are too many to list. Because the infobox is about the kernel, Stallman is not mentioned in it. Because the page is about the Linux OS, Stallman is mentioned in the second subsection of the history section. All is as it should be. Yworo (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

All Linux distributions use GNU programs and libraries(for example,the GNU C Library).

Anyway,thank you for your clarification.It is little confusing,because someone would thing that Linus Torvalds wrote the whole Linux OS.

Again,thank you for your replies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iliaskr (talk • contribs) 23:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is only intended to be a quick latest kernel version reference. Those who read the article will get the facts, which can't ever all be included in a convenience box. Yworo (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think all Linux distributions use GNU programs. GNU was written with quite expensive systems in mind ("no need to preserve memory") and are too big for many embedded systems (I have no touch on what alternative programs are sponsored by FSF). I've understood that there also are distributions for ordinary computers that use BSD userland instead of GNU. --LPfi (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There are systems that contain Linux and not GNU; Android is an example. Android is very different from the GNU/Linux system—because it doesn't contain GNU, only Linux. In effect, it's a totally different system. If you think of the whole system as “Linux”, you find it necessary to say things like, “Android contains Linux, but it isn't Linux, because it doesn't have the usual Linux [sic] libraries and utilities [meaning the GNU system].” Android contains just as much of Linux as GNU/Linux does. What it doesn't have is GNU. (Richard Stallman) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.147.110 (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Translate French

I've noticed one of the items on the to do list is to translate content from the French article. I am happy to do this if someone tells me which sections are to be translated. RedRabbit (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is my translation of the Server section of the French article. I think it's accurate, though I didn't understand some of the jargon, since I am not a specialist.

Because of Linux's relationship with UNIX, Linux is fast making inroads into the server market. One reason is the possibility of running a UNIX-type operating system on PC hardware — much less costly than running a proprietry UNIX operating system on specific hardware. A number of software for servers, high in demand and frequently-used (e.g. server HTTP, databases, Groupware, electronic-messaging server) are free, usually without limitation, and reliable; in consequence Linux has seen its market share grow rapidly.

Since Linux has a reputation for stability and efficacity with respect to maintenance, it amply meets the requirements of operating systems for servers. Furthermore, the modularity of a system based on the Linux kernal is ideal for servers dedicated to a particular task. Owing to the portability of the Linux kernal on a number of hardware components, Linux is today used on all architectures. The range of hardware supported is therefore considerable. For example, the lastest IBM eServer p5 and IBM eServer i5 are supported by IBM with a Linux operating system and allow the use of several Linux systems running in parallel.

In 2004 Linux had a marketshare in servers of around 10%, with 50% annual growth. Linux is used in nearly all domains. One of the best-known examples is summarised in the acronym LAMP, where Linux powers an Apache web server associated with the database MySQL and the programming language PHP, Perl, or Python. Linux is also often used for filesystems, most often in Windows networks through the server Samba, but less often through NFS or AppleShare.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you want any more translations. RedRabbit (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)