Talk:Linux/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Intro

I've shifted the pro/con thing from the intro into the market adoption section. The second half of the article still needs some loving to give it a definite sense of direction, so this should probably be moved elsewhere, but I agree that it doesn't really belong in the article lead. Chris Cunningham 10:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added second part only for balance, please feel free to improve it. I don't feel like going into a too detailed pro/con thing that will attract trolls and original research "Linux doesn't detect my wireless card", or "it doesn't run [...] game" and such... -- AdrianTM 11:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the balanced statement should remain in the lead section. However, please refrain from getting into an edit war over this; I have recently nominated Linux for Good Article and would not like to see it disqualified under the stability criteria due to an edit war. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you say why? In general it seems inappropriate to get involved in critical analysis in an article intro. As noted by the editor who removed it, Linux is the only major OS article which does this. Chris Cunningham 14:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of focus on "user created conten" such as YouTube and Wikipedia. Linux fits into this catagory as a user created operating system. The intro should mention "user created" and possibly link to (and be linked from) other such concepts. - Hendrixski

Page Protection

I think we need to request semi-protection for this page for ever, I personally got tired of all the crap that goes on and on, this page will always attract vandals and trolls. I feel like people who watch this page and constantly revert the vandalism are considered employed fools who work for free. When I suggested sprotect it got rejected because "the current volume of vandalism doesn't require protection" Very well, from now on I refuse to revert any vandalism, let's see if that would requre protection or not. What I want with this rant... nothing, just want to find out if anyone else think the same way.... What's the fricking problem to get an account and sign when you want to edit a page? From now on I'm on anti-vandal strike, who is joining me? -- AdrianTM 13:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, whatever you do don't take editing as a chore. If constantly fighting vandals and idiots is depressing you then just take the page off your watchlist for a while. I seriously doubt that any vandalism would last more than ten minutes on here even if all the current contributors started ignoring it; it's easier to revert than it is to vandalise, after all.
Anyway, in my experience I get far more frustrated with signed-in users (including moderators and regulars with barnstars all over their talk pages) than I do with the hoi polloi. Chris Cunningham 13:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right, thanks for the response. -- AdrianTM 14:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "From now on I'm on anti-vandal strike". I guess it's just a rant, but maybe Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point should be pointed out here. If you are tired of reverting vandalism, then don't. But for God's sake, don't to it to prove your point. However, don't misinterpret me. Your work, and that of many others, is highly commendable. Isilanes 15:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Don't disrupt Wikipedia, on purpose, by inaction" -- that sounds like one of Asimov's law or robotics applied to Wikipedia and gone wrong. -- AdrianTM 16:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You are preaching a breach of the spirit of that Wikipedia guideline, and you know it. Yours is not only inaction. You are encouraging others to join you, which is an action. You are promoting boycott of the Wikipedia to prove that some setting (concretely the lack of semi-protection) is wrong. Whether that boycott be by action or inaction is immaterial, your objective is disruption, so that your point gets proved. No need to do it, I can sympathize with you all the same, without the threat of no more rv-ing. We're on the same boat. Isilanes 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Inaction is not disruption. —Centrx→talk • 16:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Centrx, I started to be afraid that I'm going to be judged and convicted for inaction. Anywho... the question is: is the benefit derived from having free for all editing good enough reason to accept this troll fest? Now, if you ask some Wikipedia administrators they might say yes, however I, as a simple user I don't consider this a good tradeoff since I see only one good anonymous edit at every 50 or so vandalism, Wikipedia works only because there are enough good people that do the dirty work and clean the pages, my "strike" is more a question than anything, are you willing to continue to do the dirty work of cleaning the vandalism? If you do, that's fine by me, my only intend was to point that there might be a better way... and that people who want the better way need to make their voices heard somehow. That's all. -- AdrianTM 16:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey, I agree with you! I just wanted to make the point that your explanation was enough to convince anyone, and that there was no need of proving it "experimentally" (which would have the net result of harming the article). Isilanes 09:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

I've archived the recent non-productive debate about what the article should be called. It was getting mind-numbingly repetitive and it was pretty obvious that it would have carried on indefinitely. Chris Cunningham 11:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Fail (lead) Pass
2. Factually accurate? OK
3. Broad in coverage? OK (needs more in the history section)
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass


Additional comments :

  • To begin with, the lead section reads like an advertisement. Also, it is a bit on the short size.
This complaint is usually raised by mediocre writers who are unsettled by good writing in Wikipedia. I had the same complaint when I wrote about Ubuntu (Linux distribution). Mediocrity stinks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not "unsettled" by the "good writing" you just promoted to the second sentence of the article. It just looks like cheap advocacy, which is exactly what the FA criticism opposes. Chris Cunningham 11:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to involve myself into a fight which is what the first inflamatory sentence you wrote Samsara wants us to do. I will just say that the modification you partook in enhanced the quality of the lead section but the use of recent isn't adequate to wikipedia for it tries to stay time independent. Lincher 11:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Break it up, please! We are here to improve Linux to Good Article status, not to fight. Could you please take a look at four articles where I have written the lead sections (AdventureQuest, Homerun (film), I Not Stupid and I Not Stupid Too)? As the nominator, I would be happy to help rewrite the lead section, but I would like several other editors to determine whether I am sufficiently qualified (i.e. skilled in lead sections) to write a GA-quality lead section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see that there's anything wrong with the current intro, other than that it could mention Linux's predominance in the server market in a second paragraph. Samsara's edit was too prominently placed, but the article as a whole has always had a rather strange neglect of Linux's primary market role. If you think you can write a good lead then go ahead and be bold. Chris Cunningham 12:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The History needs to breathe a little, adding subsections and expanding as the summary style is a bit overused. The majority of the subsections present in the History section are also not related to the history of Linux but more about nomenclature/development.
  • Can we see a citation for Linux is one of the most widely ported operating systems, running on a diverse range of systems from the hand-held ARM-based iPAQ to the mainframe IBM System z9. Specialised distributions exist for less mainstream architectures.?
  • Be sure that citation comes after punctuation.
  • One would go to section Development in order to understand how did the kernel/hardware support and that stuff was created but none of that and instead there is a study there, which is good btw but then the title is misleading.
  • Can we have a citation to comfort this and many deliberately include only free software. or is the one at the bottom of the paragraph sufficient?

This article is close to GA but by adding just a few citations, rewriting the lead section and adding a bit more in the history section it would make it look much better. Lincher 01:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comments, however, could you guide me to where we are directed to have citations after punctuation. In my academic writing, possibly an Australian thing, however, I always put citations inside of punctuation. Ansell 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:FOOT, indirectly from the Chicago Manual of Style. Chris Cunningham 09:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
With peer-reviewed journals, the cite is before the punctuation but on wikipedia it is like C.Cunningham says in accordance with the Chicago Manual of Style's style. Lincher 17:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy to help rewrite the lead section. You may wish to look at four lead sections I have written (AdventureQuest, Homerun (film), I Not Stupid and I Not Stupid Too), to determine whether I am sufficiently qualified to rewrite the lead section of Linux. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, be brave, edit away and we'll see how it goes (just make sure you'll keep the same format for explanation about "GNU/Linux" otherwise you'll have to deal with trolls: from one side or another) -- AdrianTM 03:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

GA regards

Since the article still has about a day of on hold period, I was wondering if the editors were considering answering the other comments that have been made about the History & Development sections? Lincher 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"source code is believed to consist"?

From Talk:Software build -- "the source code for current versions of the Linux operating system is believed to consist of millions of lines of source code in thousands of files" -- Don't we know? Is there really any uncertainty about this issue, or is this an example of weasel wording? WP:WEASEL -- 201.50.249.78 17:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct, it's weasle wording. --Yath 17:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

Some comments weren't taken into considerations during the on hold period and thus the article still doesn't meet the GA requirements. Lincher 12:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

thw new layout proposed would totally fuck up the article. --AlexOvShaolin 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Linux Applications

What about a link to a separate wikipedia page containing a list of all kind of Linux applications such as offfice, security, multimedia etc?

This makes no sense. There are at least 16,000 Linux applications, almost certainly very many more. --Yamla 18:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This application page is some sort of centralized links page to other wikipedia pages about major Linux applications. Not all applications will be mentioned on the page, only major applications or applications with Wikipedia pages. The page also contain list of Linux applications that may replace similar applications in Windows.
Please sign your posts WP:SIG -- AdrianTM 04:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
List major ones. Unix jaick 04:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way to determine which one is "major" and which one is not? Most likely even a list of "major" programs will be in the order of thousands. -- AdrianTM 04:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
On distrowatch.com there is a list of top 10 major distro, top 5 liveCD, top 5 distro for Multimedia and top 5 distro for beginners. http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major. If an application is included on at least three of the popular distros, it will be put on the wikipedia list. On each list category there will be a maximum 10 applications listed. Other methods: ask users at linuxforums.org, linuxquestions.com, linuxforum.com.210.210.145.7 11:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea, but we have to remember that this is an encyclopedia. Distrowatch is not an official measure of distribution popularity. Also, it seems to be arbitrary to use 10 instead of let's say 15 or only top 5, who is to say that programs used in 3 out of 5 "top" distro is "popular" and those who are in 2 out of 5 are not. It's also kind of irrelevant, I mean there many applications that are included by default in KDE and GNOME, I'm sure that "KSnapshot" or I don't know what "K..." game would show as "popular" programs where in fact they are not really used. But again this seems as a non-encyclopedic endeavour to me. -- AdrianTM 12:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Booting

It is possible to run Linux from:

Can someone put this fact on the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.145.10 (talk • contribs)

Page move to either Linux OS or GNU/Linux --- Discuss at Talk:Linux (disambiguation)

There is a discussion on the Talk:GNU/Linux page about whether GNU/Linux should redirect to this article or be a disambiguation page. -- Alan McBeth 19:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation page version points to Linux and GNU/Linux naming controversy. -- Alan McBeth 14:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Im for it. Dustin 15:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The only name that needs disambiguation is Linux. GNU/Linux is used exclusively for the operating system. 80.233.255.7 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think GNU/Linux should be the main operating system page, Linux (kernel) should be about the kernel, GNU/Linux naming controversy should remain as is, and in fact Linux should be a disambiguation page that points to all three, saying this: Linux either refers to GNU/Linux the operating system, also known as just Linux, or Linux the kernel. For more information on this disambiguation, you can read about the GNU/Linux naming controversy. --Chris Pickett 04:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I just discovered a 5th page, Linux (disambiguation). In opinion, this should be moved to Linux. Please discuss at Talk:Linux (disambiguation). --Chris Pickett 04:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but there are many people that don't accept the silly GNU/Linux name including most of the kernel developers. In my opinion it's "Linux kernel" and "Linux OS" (or short: Linux) , that GNU/Linux is a political motivated name that is used by RMS fans because RMS asked people to use the name to promote his ideology -- it's not by any means a widely accepted name, for one thing you'll be hard pressed to find a instance in any serious publication. Doing what you propose is clear POV pushing. -- AdrianTM 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Also I suggest people don't keep reopening this discussion 80% of the Talk:Linux archive it's about this issue. -- AdrianTM 04:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF here. I'm just trying to sort out the current mess. There are TWO Linux disambiguation pages. If you want to have Linux OS as a separate page and GNU/Linux as a redirect to that, then fine, I could care less. But it's so unclear as to what Linux actually is, so I'm proposing that Linux should be the disambiguation page. Is this really so unreasonable? --Chris Pickett 04:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
And finally, please discuss at Talk:Linux (disambiguation). --Chris Pickett 05:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I responded there. -- AdrianTM 15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Adrian, you can find plenty of examples of GNU/Linux: try searching on Google News for a few examples (308 hits when I tried; not overwhelmingly common, not nearly as obscure or ghettoized a term as you seem to think). --Gwern (contribs) 17:06 6 December 2006 (GMT)
Did you find it in any important mainstream newspaper? NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times? That was the point, not that it's never used. -- AdrianTM 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Even the likes of SUN now use it. It's really not just RMS' fans. Mattl 16:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, it's not that GNU/Linux is never used. Linux is just used more often. Most users and developers in casual conversation refer to it as Linux. Nearly exclusively, major media refer to it as Linux. To the extent that the general public is aware of the operating system, they know it as Linux. Wikipedia exists to describe things as they are, not to promote anyone's idea of how they should be. –  Anþony  talk  18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
On top of that, every major distro that comes to mind besides Debian calls it Linux in the name of the distro and not GNU/Linux. Anyway, there are a list of arguments at GNU/Linux naming controversy. Chris Pickett 20:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Use on non-PC Devices

  • ipodlinux.org - Linux to run on any ipod with a display.
  • psp-linux.org - Linux for sony PlayStationPortable Device.
  • dslinux.org - Linux for the Nintendo DS console
  • xbox-linux.org - Linux for the Xbox
  • playstation2-linux.com - Linux For playstation 2

i think there should be some sort of mention of these applications (there are many more)

Desktop Usage

Destop usage: Citation needed for ease-of-use can be provided by this CNN article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inomyabcs (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linux/Archive_9&oldid=1136910113"