Talk:Linux/Archive 46
 | 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 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Pronunciation
This is the edit summary for the radical change that I made to the lead of the Linux article. Wikipedia's unfounded claims about the pronunciation of Linux were largely based on original research and unreliable sources. I'm not a native speaker of English, so taking on this task was a massive undertaking, but I hope you will agree that my conclusions are valid and that the edit was justified. Allow me to make two preliminary remarks. On this Talk page I use ʌɪ while I used its close relative aɪ in the article, because it's the closest thing that Template:IPAc-en supports. Also, I'm using the original reference numbers below, to allow you to check the old revision of the article for comparison. Before my edit, the article used three references for "LEE-nuuks" ([7], [8], [9]) and two references for "LIN-əks" ([5] and [6]). I'm describing them them one by one, and whether and how I reused them.
- [7] Its link attempts to use the NNTP protocol, which is quite user-hostile. Let's use this entry at Google Groups instead. It is a written message by Linus Torvalds. He states "'li' is pronounced with a short [ee] sound: compare prInt, mInImal etc." Remember, he's not a linguist. You can tell by his examples that by "short [ee] sound" he did /not/ mean ɛ (usually called the "short ee sound"; bEd, fEll), nor iː (mEAn, sEA), but ɪ (fIll, bIn). Listen to the audio files at OUP's OxfordDictionaries.com, for print and minimal. This is clearly an example of how to pronounce Linux with "LIN", even though the reference is used for "LEE". I'm guessing the person who retrieved this in 2007 saw "[ee]" and incorrectly concluded this was an example for "LEE". Torvalds then continues "'nux' is also short, non-diphtong, like in pUt", which would be ʊ (gOOd and fUll), but (almost) nobody, including Torvalds, uses that. Most likely he meant the reduced vowel ə (quiEt, focUs). I moved this references from "LEE" to "LIN", and added a web link (the Google Groups URL).
- [8] This is no reliable source, because: a. this is a random person's website (Paul Sladen), and b. the page doesn't go into the pronunciation /at all/; it only links to an audio file of Torvalds pronouncing Linux in English, which makes the inclusion of this reference - that was retrieved in 2006 - for "LEE" WP:OR. Not only that, in my opinion Torvalds says "Hello, this is LEEnus Torvalds and I pronounce LINux as LINux." (or "LINux as LEEnux", but that's wouldn't make sense), which is consistent with the "prInt" sound (see [7] above). I removed this reference from the article.
- [9] This too was WP:OR by the person who retrieved this in 2007, because this location at kernel.org only contains audio files of Torvalds pronouncing Linux in English (english.au) and Swedish (swedish.au; maybe it's Finnish and the file name is wrong, who knows). So, in swedish.au, I think he uses "LEE", but as The Rock would say: "It doesn't matter what you think!" I removed this reference from the article.
To summarize my actions so far, of the three references for "LEE", I removed two and moved one to "LIN".
- [5] There's not much on this page, but it does include Amazon.com ads on the right and in the middle, and also two links to a phonetics handbook on Amazon. Nowhere on this website it clearly states who is the owner/author/webmaster, but after some searching it turns out to be a random person's website (Stephen Morley). This random person writes he uses "LYN" himself. It claims that Torvalds nowadays prefers "LIN" without giving any source(s). And it claims "LEE" is Torvalds' original pronunciation, but the source is the audio file on the website of Sladen (see [8] above), which as we saw is unreliable. Morley writes that he himself uses "LYN" and, as we'll see below, he's not alone. I'm moving this reference from "LIN" to - a new - "LYN".
- [6] This is a page of the FOLDOC, hosted by Imperial College London. It has some statements about the pronunciation and also has a "More on pronunciation." link. It claims that Torvalds insists on "the short I pronunciation [...] consistent with the short I in words like linen". The word linen has an I similar to prInt, which means this could indeed be used as a source for "LIN". The page then claims that some people pronounce it with "a long I" and as an example mentions minus, which according to the minus at OxfordDictionaries.com is with an ʌɪ (Wikipedia gives prIce and wrIte as examples in footnote 11) and sounds like "LYN", the same thing Morley uses (see [5] above). This means that this could also be used as a reference for "LYN". (The page does not mention "LEE" at all.) One last note on the "More on pronunciation." link: a random person (Malcolm Dean) writes that "no one is saying Lee-nucks" and that he himself uses "Line-ucks" (confirming the usability of this reference for "LYN"; ʌɪ). I used this as a reference for both "LIN" and - the new - "LYN".
What about [LI/LY]nəks versus [LI/LY]nʊks? Wikipedia uses "nʊks" with "LEE" and respells it as "nuuks". Not only is "nuuks" not ʊ (Torvalds' "pUt"), but it should be "nuks", as used at FOLDOC. Respell is used to clarify the pronunciation, so I also changed LIN's "nəks" to "nuks".
--82.136.210.153 (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know about anybody else, but to me "LIN-uks " and "LYN-uks" are pronounced the same way. It is so bizarre how the one pronunciation guide that we all grew up with (Webster's) is no longer used. Who, outside of professional linguists, uses the IPA? Who decided to do away with the Webster system?
- Also, when someone (CNN?) covered what I think was the first Linux developer's conference, the reporter asked Torvald which of the two popular pronunciations he preferred, and he surprisingly went a third way and said that he pronounces the first syllable as "lean", which was the first time I had heard anybody call it. that way. It seems really bizarre that there is no "official" way to pronounce it. (Or would having an official pronunciation be contrary to the open source movement?)__209.179.93.170 (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of NSA Request section
The section talking about how the NSA asked Linus to insert a backdoor into the OS doesn't meaningfully contribute to the article. Yeah, it happened and all, but I feel that it goes off topic. There are plenty of anecdotes like the 200-line scheduler patch that aren't mentioned. In other pages about Operating Systems (e.g. Microsoft Windows and Mac OS), there are mentions of neither the NSA nor backdoors, even if the code is likely to have been tampered with by the government.
I'm removing this section per WP:Bold. If someone wants to revert this: go ahead, and then state your reasoning here. This section needs to find a home on a different page or be converted just a hyper-linked mention. Linuxtinkerer (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hello! I agree that it does stick out in an unnatural way, especially as a separate section and not as a subsection or simply as a sentence/paragraph somewhere in the article. Speaking of that, I don't see where would it fit as a sentence of paragraph. At the same time, the same information is already available in Linus Torvalds § Possible NSA approach, where it fits much better. Thus, I've added it back in form of a "See also" link. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the edit and follow-up! It never occurred to me to add that section to Torvalds' page. Cheers Linuxtinkerer (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
"Mainly open source, closed source also available"
According to this article, Linux is open source, with "closed source also available". Is this statement accurate? Jarble (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- No. A vendor might add proprietary (sometimes patented) closed source features, including applications, device drivers, user interfaces, etc., built on public interfaces, but under the GPL, which covers pretty much everything in Linux, they must be prepared to provide source for any open source components they used, including any modifications they made to the open source. Msnicki (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's accurate. The kernel itself actually includes proprietary firmware (binary blobs) in the sources. The GNU project maintain scripts to remove these "blobs" for their recommended distros.
- In regards to the "License" section in the infobox, I think it's a good idea to change "GNU GPL" to "free and open source" or "GNU GPL and other free and open source licenses". It is the license of the kernel, but the "Linux" noted in this article is not only the "Linux" hosted on kernel.org. Also, because of the fact most distros ship closed source programs/firmware (including the "blobs", Flash, media plugins, etc), it should be mentioned in that section that Linux usually ships with a small amount of closed source code (something like "... usually with a small amount of propriety/closed source prrograms add". --Inops (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, and I don't see how the note about Linus's trademark bares anything but a tangential relationship to the license. --Inops (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's a good point, "GNU GPL and other free and open source licenses" fits much better as this isn't the Linux kernel article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
A discussion on the Linux distribution talk page
There's a somewhat lengthy discussion in Talk:Linux distribution § Information on GNU/Linux that would really need input from more editors. It's about an ongoing disagreement on how should a Linux distribution be described, required level of coverage by references, and the way article's lead section should reflect the article content. Any input there would be highly appreciated! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Linux: A family of operating systems all running on the same kernel, or a single OS?
The lead currently reads:
Linux is a Unix-like and mostly POSIX-compliant computer operating system assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds. The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux, which has led to some controversy.
This speaks of Linux as a single operating system. However, there are various Linux distributions in the world that may differ radically from each other. Standard "traditional" distributions like Debian (or even Tizen on mobile devices), which core components consist mainly of GNU and freedesktop.org components), less orthodox mobile-oriented distributions like Android (consists mainly of in-house developed and several BSD-derived components) and FirefoxOS (consists mainly of a HAL, a browser rendering engine[which is basically the userland runtime for web browsing as well as installed apps], an XUL engine[for apps with XUL based user interfaces] and a touch-oriented shell) , and embedded distributions which may contain barely anything beyond the kernel and BusyBox, all differ so fundamentally that it may not be called "one" operating system. Therefore I propose editing the lead to read:
Linux is a family of Unix-like and mostly POSIX-compliant computer operating systems assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds. The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux, which has led to some controversy, to refer to Linux operating systems that incorporate GNU userland as a major component.
I would like to receive views and feedback from the Wikipedia community, be it in favor of, against, or extending upon/enhancing this change, and hope that through discussion a conclusion as close to the fact as possible may be obtained. Busukxuan (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hm, this proposal looks good to me, but of course let's wait for other editors' opinions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- The trouble is that it is wrong: Linux is not a family of OSs. We have discussed long and hard and have concluded here that this article is named 'Linux' because that is, in everyday speech, the WP:COMMONNAME of the thing the article is about. In everyday speech, I can say that "my computer is running Linux." When I say this, I am using the word 'Linux' correctly, and I am not referring to a family of OSs, but to the actual, single OS on my computer. This may be irritating to people who would like the world to be different, to those who would like people to use more precise language when they speak, and to those who would like people to mention 'GNU' more often. Unfortunately, we don't write articles about what people ought to say, do, and know, but about what people actually say, do, and know, based on what we find in reliable, published sources (WP:RS). It might be true to say that "There is a family of operating systems that are based on the Linux kernel," but that is not what is being proposed here, and if it was it would not be clear how well that introduces the WP:COMMONNAME that this article is about. --Nigelj (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you say your computer is running "the Linux operating system" and are not using "operating system" as a synonym to "kernel", then you are saying something factually wrong. There is no piece of software called "Linux" which is anything more than a kernel. (Count in e.g. util-linux-ng if you want and then it's "kernel plus a few C programs"; doesn't change my point.) The correct fact behind what these uninformed people are claiming is: they're running one of the handful of operating systems (there are literally hundreds if not thousands of GNU/Linux distributions, but only a handful are used in practice) made up of a combination of GNU programs, the Linux kernel, the X.Org windowing system, and a few more system-near components by third parties (say wpa-supplicant) which one would count as components of the "operating system" and not "applications" running on it (a blurry line, surely). They are using the word "Linux" to refer to any such operating system. Making this article about that collection of operating systems is fine, even if the word "Linux" is a technical misnomer for them, if popular usage has adopted this (but obviously one would expect the article to mention this technical error on the side of the masses); however pretending that there is one piece of software --one operating system-- by the name "Linux" is factually wrong, no matter how many ignorant people imply that. 80.72.254.242 (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- The trouble is that it is wrong: Linux is not a family of OSs. We have discussed long and hard and have concluded here that this article is named 'Linux' because that is, in everyday speech, the WP:COMMONNAME of the thing the article is about. In everyday speech, I can say that "my computer is running Linux." When I say this, I am using the word 'Linux' correctly, and I am not referring to a family of OSs, but to the actual, single OS on my computer. This may be irritating to people who would like the world to be different, to those who would like people to use more precise language when they speak, and to those who would like people to mention 'GNU' more often. Unfortunately, we don't write articles about what people ought to say, do, and know, but about what people actually say, do, and know, based on what we find in reliable, published sources (WP:RS). It might be true to say that "There is a family of operating systems that are based on the Linux kernel," but that is not what is being proposed here, and if it was it would not be clear how well that introduces the WP:COMMONNAME that this article is about. --Nigelj (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as the Linux operating system (just as there is no such thing as the GNU/Linux operating system). Are there any real arguments to the contrary? Careless and imprecision on the part of people talking about it isn't a reason for Wikipedia to use incorrect terminology. I suspect that some of the people claiming there is a single "Linux" OS want to build their reputation and/or business around a single, strong brand. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, I agree that this article is indeed about the everyday "Linux" we talk about. Note that there are also many people who refer to any OS running the Linux kernel as Linux in general, but I agree that most people who don't know much about Linux simply mean the "traditional" Linux when they say it. However, that doesn't solve the problem. "Traditional" Linux is itself a diverse group of operating systems. I know they're all similar, but
- They are similar, not identical.
- They probably have the same kernel, all contain GNU coreutils, and an X server, but the user facing side is part of an OS, and if not officially recognized as a "spin" or "flavor", different systems with different DEs and extra in-house components should be considered separate OSes. Besides, even desktop Linux distros are not always binary compatible(not talking about package formats), and sometimes the incompatibility stems beyond just library versions. There are also the init systems: sysvinit, systemd, OpenRC(Gentoo), Upstart(being dumped by Ubuntu in favor of systemd) . Besides, Maui even tries to create a distro that replaces X with Wayland. Also, look at Ubuntu, it's quite a radical distro, and it's planning to use Mir instead of Wayland.
- Other Unix-like OSes can be very similar too
- Other open source Unix-like and Unix OSes like the BSDs, Darwin(open source base of OS X) and OpenIndiana ("continuation" of OpenSolaris) can all run the X server and X desktop environments, and the "coreutils" are of course very similar, though they might not be GNU coreutils but ones they have developed themselves. Note that Debian GNU/Hurd runs on essentially same userland components as Debian GNU/Linux, and that's GNU, not Linux.
- Besides, what is the common meaning of "Linux" anyway,
- The part that mentions that the FSF uses the term GNU/Linux to refer to the combination of Linux and GNU is very important (so as to avoid the impression that the GNU project and FSF wants to claim credit for the kernel, which they don't), but it should also be added (possibly next to that sentence) that this the most common form in which Linux (which is a kernel and not an OS or anything else, despite that most involved wikipedians seem happy to bend the policy on reliable sources to the point of not only accepting and divulging a widespread misconception, but also downplaying the role of the GNU project which not only is a bigger and more important part of what they call “Linux” than the actual Linux, but is responsible for creating the free software movement which makes Wikipedia possible in the first place) is used for desktop, laptop and server computers. In short: The FSF claims proper credit for the very closely related GNU project by calling the OS GNU/Linux when GNU is actually used, but combining GNU with Linux is the rule rather than the exception. QrTTf7fH (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC).
- The idea that Linux is only used to refer to the kernel is inaccurate. That new accounts continue to come here and try to claim otherwise is odd, because even on the surface that statement is false. It is not a "misconception", nor is it "bending the policy on reliable sources." That would only be true if you view it through the lens of a minority POV, but the problem with that is that reliable sources contradict and reject this minority opinion. Wikipedia does not base content off of minority POV agendas based on opinions and cherry-picked logic, and reliable sources contradict what you're saying wholesale. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- As wholesale as the term Linux is used to describe an the otherwise know as GNU/Linux software, in what way is the GNU/Linux name based on "cherry-picked logic"? --Davidnotcoulthard(talk:Davidnotcoulthard)
- The idea that Linux is only used to refer to the kernel is inaccurate. That new accounts continue to come here and try to claim otherwise is odd, because even on the surface that statement is false. It is not a "misconception", nor is it "bending the policy on reliable sources." That would only be true if you view it through the lens of a minority POV, but the problem with that is that reliable sources contradict and reject this minority opinion. Wikipedia does not base content off of minority POV agendas based on opinions and cherry-picked logic, and reliable sources contradict what you're saying wholesale. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Erm, I think his point is just that we should emphasize that the most common form of Linux is that which comes with GNU userland as a core component. Anyway we better get this clear first because depending on definition Linux may or may not always incorporate GNU coreutils as core. In the question I asked above (in the bullet/unordered list), if the answer is the first one then so called "GNU/Linux" is not only the most common but the only form of Linux(the OS, not the kernel).
- Busukxuan (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- " if the answer is the first one then so called "GNU/Linux" is not only the most common but the only form of Linux(the OS, not the kernel)." A kernel called Linux was created, and the only rest-of-OS that worked well with it that's Free Software were the ones from GNU. Based on the Definition of Linus, the OS, on the page, its defining component is the kernel. Thus, when another OS uses Linux as a kernel (Android, anyone?), without GNU and freedesktop.org, then there'd be >1 form of Linux. You may argue that most people think of "Linux the OS" meant Linux+GNU+Freedesktop.org, at the very, very least the Linux page should at least say so. I made it say that the defining components are Linux and GNU but the edit was reverted for some reason. If GNU and Freedesktop.org aren't defining components, I don't see the point behind the "People think of it as Linux+GNU+Freedesktop.org anyway" argument. [[User:Davidnotcoulthard|Davidnotcoulthard]](talk:[[User talk:Davidnotcoulthard|Davidnotcoulthard]]) (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC) 11:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's not true that it's uncommon to refer to the kernel that Linus Torvalds created as Linux, either. Linus Torvalds is widely referred to as the creator of Linux, and the Tux logo as Linux's logo. Neither would be true if you were talking about some larger operating system containing Linux as a component. Count Truthstein (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It looks like this discussion has stagnated for 21 days. It seems, at least from the responds above, there are more people in favor of this change than there are people against it, but a more fundamental problem has surfaced: what is Linux? In my opinion this should be made clear before the edit, and this question will be given its own section. Busukxuan (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion I think the proposed edit is not wrong. Actually, I think the page on Linux should contain all used meanings of the word, with the as-of-now-current GNU/Linux article a part of that article.
I particularly like the way the Hacker_(term) page looks. "Hacker" may more often than not be used, by reliable sources (WordPress, NBC, NY Times, etc), to describe what some say should be described as "Crackers". However, the article gives ample room to both meanings of the term. I don't see why we shouldn't have that in the Linux article. I think the article should perhaps start with a list like the one in Hacker_(term), describe all meanings. One entry in the list should describe the kernel (and then link to its article), another as a viewed-by-some-as-an OS family, and another as the 'operating system'. The rest of the article then goes explaining the OS, including the naming controversy (which should be merged into the article).
I also don't see what's wrong in calling the OS GNU/Linux. At the end of the day I think the argument is not about which of the 2 terms is correct, but whether "Linux" is, with the general consensus being that GNU/Linux is correct but Linux is easier and also correct. So I don't see why changes made to instances of the word "Linux" into "GNU/Linux" in Wikipedia articles should be reverted over that reason alone. It might be part of an agenda (the entire GNU part of the OS is), but it isn't wrong (nor do the sources that use "Linux" claim that "GNU/Linux" is incorrect, as far as my reading goes). It's not the general consensus, but that doesn't mean that other opinions should be ignored (again, take a look at Hacker).
The Linux article should start with:
Linux is a term used to describe:
- a Unix-like computer operating system kernel. The Linux kernel is the most widely used operating system kernel in the world; the Linux operating system uses it and deployed on both traditional computer systems, usually in the form of Linux distributions,[8] and on embedded devices such as routers. The Android operating system for tablet computers and smartphones is also based atop the Linux kernel. See Linux_kernel
- A Unix-like and mostly POSIX-compliant computer operating system assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The defining component of Linux is the Linux kernel an operating system kernel first released on 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds, and GNU (apart from its Hurd kernel), which had development started in 1983. The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux, which has led to some controversy.
- A term sometimes used to group the operating systems that use Linux as their kernel.
(OK, that's not what the Hacker pages look like, but I think much better than Linux is as of now. Actually, maybe we need a Linux (term) article)--Davidnotcoulthard(talk:Davidnotcoulthard) 16:00 UTC Jan 25th 2015
- IMHO, that bulleted list would be simply too complicated, somewhat confusing, and unnecessarily against WP:PROSE. Current lead section should be clear to anyone who actually wants to understand it. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
- It might be more complicated, and even a bit confusing, but it's more correct, and I feel that's what encyclopedias should strive for first and foremost. The page as it is might be clear, but it's not entirely right (see my post just below). Also is the Hacker page too complicated? Should the bullet points there be removed? I, personally, don't think so. And I don't think the list I suggested would be unneccesarrily against the Prose thing since as I've stated it'd be more correct.(talk:Davidnotcoulthard)16:28 UTC Jan 25th 2015
- Hacker (term) article is clearly marked with
{{Cleanup-reorganize|article|date=April 2008}}, what indicates that it is "in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines". Thus, comparing that article with other well-written articles makes little sense. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hacker (term) article is clearly marked with
- Oppose. I agree with Dsimic. This would not be an improvement. I support the current consensus for our current lede. Msnicki (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I edited the defining components of "Linux the OS" to Linux and GNU and someone changes it back to Linux. I'm sorry but if Linux is the only defining component of the thing then those arguments about how most people know Linux to mean the kernel plus GNU and that Android would thus not cause confusion and perhaps the one that "Linux and GNU is the only form of Linux as an OS" are blown out of the water, are they not? I'm sorry, but to see someone state here that it's OK to call the entire OS Linux based on how most people know it to mean Linux and GNU, only for the Wikipedia page not to include GNU as a defining component, is just ridiculous.(talk:Davidnotcoulthard) 16:00 UTC Jan 25th 2015
Ambiguity/Misunderstanding about Nokia X
See Smart Devices
"the Nokia X is Microsoft's first product which uses the Linux kernel."
As far as I know, Nokia X was developed and marketed by Nokia when its acquisition by Microsoft was not yet closed. The sources cited there also don't say that Nokia X was Microsoft's move. This news article declares the acquisition date as 25th April 2014. Nokia X was launched on 24th February 2014. GunjanPB (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)