Talk:Linux distribution/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Information on GNU/Linux

See also: User talk:Chealer § Edit warring and User talk:Dsimic § Edit warring
For a quick overview, please see viewpoint summaries below.

User:Dsimic has added a paragraph about the GNU/Linux naming controversy to the Components section. The paragraph is certainly offtopic as it stands, but if anyone thinks this can be integrated properly, please try it. The discussion above resulted in maintaining distinct articles to treat GNU/Linux and GNU/Linux distributions. Unless a specific relevance to this article is added, I will move the paragraph to GNU/Linux. --Chealer (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! To be precise, I haven't added it; instead, I've actually reverted your deletion of that paragraph and moved it later in the Linux distribution § Components section. To me, it should be beneficial to briefly mention GNU/Linux at that place, as GNU/Linux is pretty much what distributions actually are; though, it could use better integration. By the way, my personal opinion is that the whole "GNU/Linux" thing a total nonsense, but we should be as neutral as possible. Of course, we should also hear opionions from other editors, if you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Went ahead and edited the paragraph for a better integration that should also make more sense. Looking better? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I do think it's relevant enough to that section to mention it there, since a big part of the GNU/Linux-naming logic are the overall components. However, I think "which actually refers to what is provided through various Linux distibutions" is kind of confusing, and might be worded a little differently. - Aoidh (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, it might be somewhat confusing – here's a take two on the wording. Better? :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
There is reason to have the new version in this article, however the new version is incorrect. GNU/Linux is not "actually provided in form of various Linux distributions". It may be provided that way, but it may also be provided in the form of each of its components, which is the [main] reason why we keep this article separate from GNU/Linux.
Reasons why we might want to mention the naming issue would include discussing which GNU components GNU/Linux includes, or that each distribution may include a different set of GNU components. --Chealer (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Any chances, please, for explaining a bit further how "it may also be provided in the form of each of its components"? Sorry, but that sounds confusing. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I meant that GNU/Linux is [indirectly] distributed by the authors of each of its components. Not just by "distributors". There is no need for "distributors" to obtain GNU/Linux (although you would likely only obtain source that way). --Chealer (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hm, that's debatable... However, I'd say that the whole "GNU/Linux" thing is pretty much a nonsense, but what you've just noted has been pretty much already addressed with the last few edits ("which is usually provided in form of Linux distributions that may include various GNU components"), if you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I would say the last few edits entirely addressed this issue. --Chealer (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I was talking about your addition, not about the move you did later. It's definitely appropriate to mention GNU/Linux in that section; the issue I have is with describing GNU/Linux in an article about GNU/Linux distributions. --Chealer (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm really disappointed to see that our agreement backfired. Let me describe why I find the changes I've reverted to be a total nonsense:

  • Defining a Linux distribution as "a distribution of GNU/Linux" and stating that "GNU/Linux users usually obtain their operating system by obtaining a GNU/Linux distribution" makes no sense whatsoever. First, please see Talk:Linux/Archive 41 and Talk:Linux/Referring to this article for why we don't use "GNU/Linux" on Wikipedia. Second, defining a Linux distribution as "a distribution of GNU/Linux" provides no actual description, and that undescriptive nonsense continues into "GNU/Linux users usually obtain their operating system by obtaining a GNU/Linux distribution". In short: "GNU/Linux" isn't used on Wikipedia, and you simply can't describe a word such as "distribution" by using the same word. In case that wasn't clear enough, an ocean can't be defined as "a blue ocean".
  • No reference is required for "distributions have taken a wide variety of forms – including fully featured desktop, server, laptop [...] operating systems". It's widely known that various distributions contain specific features and optimizations for their use on desktops, servers and laptops.
  • Also, tagging "in such a way that its 'out-of-the-box' capabilities meet the needs of its particular end-user base" with a need for a reference isn't justified as it's now covered by the reference I've already added, which clearly confirms it:
Popular desktop Linux distributions offer a wide range of software to the end users. This allows the distribution to become widely accepted as it fits the needs of many users. However, more advanced distributions exist that focus on a particular market (like set-top boxes for multimedia presentations, firewalls and network management, home automation appliances, ...) and of course, these distributions offer different software titles to the users.
In short, please read the references.
  • Finally, deleting "which is usually provided in form of Linux distributions that may include various GNU components" by stating that "removal of duplication constitutes an improvement" (wording adjusted to fit here) shows that you aren't familiar with the purpose of lead sections. Please read WP:LEAD and make youself more familiar with the concept; in a few words, lead sections sum up articles by repeating what articles say in a condensed form.

Hopefully more editors will also provide their opinions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Referring to GNU/Linux without using your favorite name does not make something nonsense.
  • We do use "GNU/Linux" on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you mean by "actual description", but I suppose that's what this article wants to leave to GNU/Linux. The sentence you quote doesn't define "distribution", it defines a GNU/Linux distribution. A set certainly can't be defined as a smaller set, but that's not what the definition does.
  • The problematic sentence is unclear, but even if several distributions contain specific features and optimizations for their use on laptops (for instance), these may not be laptop operating systems; a reference is needed, as usual.
  • That is technically incorrect since the reference refers neither to "'out-of-the-box' capabilities" nor to "its particular end-user base", but I corrected the claim.
  • I already know WP:LEAD. The version I removed was the one outside the lead.
Input from other editors is certainly welcome. --Chealer (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Did you go through the Linux article talk pages linked above? They clearly show that the consensus is not to use "GNU/Linux" when referring to Linux and associated matter. Please read again what I wrote, and the point is that a distribution can't be described with the same term; in other words, the goal of the article is to define a distribution. Let's go back to the ocean example; if you met someone who never saw an ocean, would you describe it with "an ocean is a blue ocean", or with "an ocean is a body of saline water that composes much of a planet's hydrosphere" (that's how our Ocean article does it).
You're right that the "wide variety of forms" sentence might be a bit unclear, but a reference is totally not needed. Also, the second sentence ("meet the needs") could also be made a bit more clear. Could you, please, propose here how would you like them to be rephrased, so we can discuss and reach a consensus?
If you're familiar with the purpose of the lead sections, then I really wonder how can you say that content deduplication is the name of the game? Again, lead sections repeat what the articles say, in a condensed form. Got it? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no intention to go through discussion pages of another article, in particular old and archived ones. There is no consensus not to use "GNU/Linux" when referring to GNU/Linux. The page move discussion you linked merely shows that there was no consensus to rename GNU/Linux. Please read again what I replied: "The sentence you quote doesn't define "distribution", it defines a GNU/Linux distribution. A set certainly can't be defined as a smaller set, but that's not what the definition does." That should answer your question.
References are always needed, this case is no exception. I already rephrased the second sentence.
I am not sure what you mean by "how can you say that content deduplication is the name of the game". I am perfectly familiar with lead sections, but again, the version I removed was the one outside the lead.--Chealer (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, refusing to follow already established consensuses is your problem, and the fact some discussions have been achived doesn't invalidate anything. Also, what makes you think that you actually aren't trying to define something as a subset of the same thing?
Speaking of references, I still find those exact ones not needed, but there you go – now we know that the sky is usually blue. By the way, moving forward please try to provide references instead of just slapping {{Citation needed}} tags.
Regarding the lead sections, let me draw a simple picture for you: in articles, we have lead sections that sum up the rest of the article by repeating what the article says, in a condensed form. Thus, saying that the "removal of duplication constitutes an improvement" (what I've called "the name of the game") makes no sense; in other words, lead sections in general shouldn't have anything that isn't also mentioned somewhere in the article body. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensuses cannot be "followed", and discussions are not valid or invalid. Consensuses exist or do not exist, and discussions happened. The definition says GNU/Linux distributions are distributions of GNU/Linux. If you think distributions of GNU/Linux are a (proper) subset of GNU/Linux distributions, please try naming one GNU/Linux distribution which isn't a distribution of GNU/Linux, rather than questioning the veracity of a self-evident definition.
I do try to provide references, but that's not always possible. I doubt we can find a reference in this case, for example. There are clearly distributions with tablet editions, but I still challenge anyone to find some for the other computer types mentioned, particularly laptops.
There is no way your first sentence (Regarding the lead sections) would lead to the conclusion that "the "removal of duplication constitutes an improvement" [...] makes no sense". --Chealer (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but this whole thing seems to be bordering with trolling and in the interest of keeping the work environment healthy I'm seeking for a WP:3PO. By the way, why did you remove other content from this talk page while posting your comment? Unless done by mistake, that can be seen as vandalism. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
See Below —Lightgodsy(TALKCONT) 09:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Good luck finding support, but even seeking dispute resolution does not justify edit warring. I did not remove the other content, that appears to be a MediaWiki bug, but thanks for fixing. Sorry, that was the first time it hit me. --Chealer (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, you're the one who introduces false fanboyism-based statements into the article, hurting its quality, and somebody has to take care of it; that should stop until discussed further. As we know, seeking for a third opinion is perfectly fine, so please fill in the summary below. At the same time, to which effects of a MediaWiki bug you're referring to (providing diffs would be helpful)? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If you think I introduce "false fanboyism-based statements into the article", the best response is to notice me, not to "take care" of it. I did not blame you for seeking a third opinion. What I said is that reverting without discussion constitutes edit warring, even if you request dispute resolution.
I do not understand your question. --Chealer (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you simply unable to comprehend what I've described at least five times so far, or what? Please reread the descriptions above (or below, in my viewpoint summary) for why your edits aren't improvements to the article. Also, why don't you provide the summary of your viewpoint in the third opinion section below? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The arguments you already put forward have been refuted. Repeating them will not help. How would "GNU/Linux users usually obtain their operating system by obtaining a GNU/Linux distribution." be redundant? As I already indicated, there is no such thing as a "clear consensus that "GNU/Linux" shouldn't be used in our articles". It is correct that a set can't be described as being one of its [strict] subsets, but as I already said, the definition you're removing does not do that.
It is well-known that some distributions are optimized for laptops (and other classes), but the question is whether some have operating systems specifically for those.
As for the duplication removal, as I already mentioned, the guideline you refer to concerns the lead, while the duplication was in the article's body.
I cannot perform several tasks simultaneously. --Chealer (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
You've proved nothing. Pretty much nobody except Stallman uses "GNU/Linux", as the above linked discussions clearly describe; refusing that as a reality is your problem. You're just repeating the same broken rationale over and over while keeping your eyes closed; the best example of your impaired reasoning is that WP:LEAD applies only to lead sections. Lead sections and article bodies are directly related, and their "no deduplication" relationship works both ways: something can't be summed if it doesn't already exist. Got it now?
If you're unable to do more than a single thing in over a day, then it would've been better if you could devote your time to writing the viewpoint summary below instead of reverting. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I really hope that this may be some kind of a compromise so we can stop this pointless back-and-forth. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"GNU/Linux" is used a lot, although "Linux" is more used on Wikipedia. I am not the one with a reality problem here.
I certainly did not "get" it. Which ""no deduplication" relationship" are you talking about??
I am perfectly able to do more than one thing in a day. However, my work on Wikimedia is not remunerated, and I prioritize discussion over escalating conflicts. --Chealer (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, you obviously don't want to reach some kind of a compromise. Are you really unable to grasp the concept of summing up something, which can't be summed if it doesn't already exist? I'd say that you perfectly understand it, and that you're just pretending and trying to annoy me to the point of giving up. So, why didn't you respond to the third opinion request? Did you actually go that way to silently boycott it? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I never heard about the concept of "summing up something, which can't be summed if it doesn't already exist", and I do not even understand what that means.
I did not respond to the request for the reason mentioned above, and for no other reason. --Chealer (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, do you understand the concept of summing up? Regarding your explanation for providing no response in about two days, sorry but it doesn't hold water. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I understand the concept of summing up very well.
Is there a reason why you claim my explanation would not be valid? --Chealer (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate a bit which explanation are you referring to? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The explanation I was referring to is the one you had just referred to. --Chealer (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but that doesn't explain it and I still don't understand you. Please invest some time into clarifying what you're referring to; you've asked me a few times to do the same, and I've always had patience to provide a clear explanation. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That certainly explains it, but let me indeed invest some more time into serving you a crystal-clear answer (if possible, I would like to have my golden plate back when you are done). You wrote "Regarding your explanation for providing no response in about two days, sorry but it doesn't hold water.". I replied "Is there a reason why you claim my explanation would not be valid?".
By the way, you are free to break my replies if you wish to reply inline. --Chealer (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
What golden plates? Sorry, you're just confusing me further, and I still really don't undertand what you mean. If you've referred to that explanation, that was about the explanation of providing no response to the third opinion request, not about the viewpoint summary you've refused to provide. That's clearly visible in my sentence. By the way, replies aren't to be made inside other posts. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
What viewpoint summary did I refuse to provide?
By the way, that's why I told you are free to break my replies if you wish to reply inline, so I can understand you easier, although the opposite would probably make more difference. --Chealer (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion and continued discussion

Request:

  1. As discussed in Talk:Linux distribution § Information on GNU/Linux, there's 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. 22:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
no Declined— Response to third opinion request :
The third opinion request (on how should a Linux distribution be described) for this page has been declined. I have made no previous edits on Linux distribution and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. —Lightgodsy(TALKCONT) 04:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Lightgodsy (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a few paragraphs below.
Viewpoint by (Chealer):
Hi Lightgodsy, and thank you for your quick offer. I do not see what Dsimic has described as a dispute, but as a number of independent issues. It seems 3 remain:
  1. Disagreement on the definition which should be used.
    Dsimic prefers redefining GNU/Linux, while I favor deferring to the article which already covers that topic, simply providing a trivial definition linking to GNU/Linux.
  2. The lack of reference supporting the existence of editions of distributions targeting specific classes of computers (particularly, laptops).
    Dsimic is convinced and thinks this exempts from verifiability. I am particular unconvinced in the case of laptops, and would insist on a reference anyway, at least for that class.
  3. Disagreement on the pertinence of keeping a paragraph about the GNU/Linux naming issue.
    As explained above, this has nothing specific to distributions and is already covered in GNU/Linux.
On the other hand, Dsimic is on a "crusade" against myself, and may see things differently. I hope that helps, and thank you in advance. --Chealer (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Viewpoint by (Dsimic)
I've tried to sum it up in one brief sentence, and it unfortunately wasn't clarifying the whole thing that much. Therefore, I've opted for a bit longer summary below, hope it's Ok.
The remaining disputes involve (a) the definition of a Linux distribution in article's lead section, (b) {{Citation needed}} tagging for laptop-optimized distributions in article's lead section, and (c) removal of "which is usually provided in form of Linux distributions that may include various GNU components" from the Linux distribution § Components section (all visible in this diff).
(a) To me, a Linux distribution can't be called "a GNU/Linux distribution" or described as "a distribution of GNU/Linux", while "GNU/Linux users usually obtain their operating system by obtaining a GNU/Linux distribution" is redundant and a reflection of GNU/Linux fanboyism. As already described in the discussion above (please see Talk:Linux/Archive 41 and Talk:Linux/Referring to this article), there's a clear consensus that "GNU/Linux" shouldn't be used in our articles. At the same time, something simply can't be described as being a subset of the same thing; that's what I've tried to compare with describing an ocean as "a blue ocean".
(b) Regarding the request for a reference, already existing reference #3 (http://www.linux.com/learn/docs/ldp/282996-choosing-the-best-linux-distributions-for-you) clearly confirms the existence of laptop-optimized Linux distributions, as well as the existence of those well-suitable for servers, desktops, etc. At the same time, other existing reference, #4 (http://www.linux.com/news/embedded-mobile/mobile-linux/794261-mobile-linux-distros-keep-on-morphing), confirms the existence of Linux distributions for embedded and mobile devices.
(c) Speaking of the content removal in Linux distribution § Components section, it all boils down to what WP:LEAD says: "the lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". Thus, deleting content from the article body with a rationale that the lead section already covers it (as stated by Chealer) makes no sense whatsoever. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dsimic: Sentence was a misnomer created by the template. Your response is fine. Changed the word sentence. —Lightgodsy(TALKCONT) 08:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Third opinion by Lightgodsy:
....
I had a huge response ready and it gave a decent third view on almost all of your disagreements about this article. I dug though the history logs and did quite a bit of research on the topic. It all seemed fruitless, there has been so much going on with this article as of late. Please give a brief summary of your opinions, and state the exact portion of the article that is in dispute. I gathered that this was about the 'Components' section, though I noticed other sections such as 'Installation-free distributions (live CDs)' having smaller disputes. This format will give you both a chance to make your views more concise and make it vastly easier for me to give a Third Opinion. I will respond once you both have filled out the viewpoint section above.
@Chealer— By the way, why did you remove other content from this talk page while posting your comment? Unless done by mistake, that can be seen as vandalism. Dsimic. Deleting, Editing, moving, or changing another Wikipedian's contribution (without their express consent) is considered Vandalism. This will in no way effect my opinion on this matter. I'm going to assume this was a mistake or you didn't know that it was an improper thing to do, as I always assume good faith. However, it needs to be rectified (most likely meaning a restoration of data).
—Lightgodsy(TALKCONT) 06:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
—Lightgodsy(TALKCONT) 18:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
no Declined— Reason. As the discussion continues above, one of the users has had ample time and notice to fill in the viewpoint above and has chosen not to do so. So without a concise viewpoint on there behalf, if I were to finish my third opinion, I might miss crucial parts of their viewpoint and miss the mark entirely. Anyhow, I don't think it would help, because of lack of participation in the process. —Lightgodsy(TALKCONT) 09:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I have been asked here by Dsimic to provide fresh eyes to this discussion. Note that I have skimmed the above discussion, but not read the entire thread. I assume we're still talking about the second paragraph of the Components section. In the interest of full disclosure, my opinion on the GNU/Linux naming controversy is in line with Linus's (that GNU provided programs to Linux, yet no kernel, so therefore "GNU/Linux" may be used to refer to a distribution, but not the operating system itself).
My opinion is that the paragraph under discussion isn't pertinent to this article because it's not encyclopedic fact. Rather, it's the opinion of the Free Software Foundation and others. An analogy would be adding a paragraph about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's assertion that The Holocaust never happened to the bottom of the History section of article about Germany. Ahmadinejad's opinion doesn't alter German history, just like Richard Stallman's opinion doesn't alter Linux distributions as they exist today (not to compare Stallman to Ahmadinejad, of course). In summary, I suggest leaving the controversial opinion to articles geared toward those issues, per WP:OPINION and WP:NOTOPINION.
That said, I don't feel strongly about this (it's certainly not worth reams of argument), and wouldn't be bothered if the paragraph were to stay. If it does stay, though, I would replace the clause "see the GNU/Linux naming controversy for more details" with a proper template, so as not to break the fourth wall and speak directly to our readers. On the other hand, if the paragraph is removed, just create a GNU/Linux naming controversy link in the See Also section. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 07:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the paragraph. --Chealer (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, voidxor, for commenting here! Beside that second paragraph, which Chealer and I have pretty much agreed on over time (but I wouldn't mind not to have it at all), the content dispute also involves the lead section. Reading my viewpoint overview, which is available above and contains links to diffs, should provide a condensed insight into what else is disputed (unfortunately, Chealer hasn't provided an overview). — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right: I needed a summary of summaries too. It seems to me that we get a fairly regular trickle of warriors turn up on all the Linux articles trying to shoe-horn as many mentions of 'GNU' and 'GNU/Linux' into the prominent text as possible. This has been discussed at length over the years, and I see no need further to debate deleting such attempts. That said, I suppose there's no harm in mentioning here and there in article text that there are still a few people in the world who are upset by this. I agree, however, in keeping it brief and of course 'not addressing the reader' etc. As for the rest, it looks like obfuscation to me. The citation-needed tagging of 'laptop' where the first cited reference lists "use-case categories" and the second one is 'laptop' etc. I imagine that it is necessary for a POV-warrior to pick a few pedantic other points to argue about (inc. golden plates etc) so that they are not immediately dismissed as a single-purpose account. The article reads fine as it is; I didn't see any major problems in the text at the moment. Keep up the good work. --Nigelj (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Nigelj, for commenting here! This discussion simply needed input from more editors, as it was a pretty much pointless back-and-forth in which it was simply impossible to explain obvious things. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, everyone.

I've been invited here to give a fresh opinion on the topic. I'll summarize my point of view:

  • Is the mention of GNU/Linux controversy warranted in this article?
    Sure. The controversy is exactly about the subject of this article. Linux, Linux kernel and Linux distributions are analogous to an element, an atom of an element and the molecules of the element respectively. These two are related directly.
  • How must the references occur?
    To tell the truth, I don't know and I don't mind. But the current style is not MOS-compliant. One must choose between: See also section, Summary style or simple mention inside a paragraph via a link (without a hatnote template).

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Codename Lisa! Sure thing, the article would need more work to become completely compliant to the MOS, and we can get to making it better in that respect at some point in time. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I was also invited to review this discussion and article and offer an opinion and I actually did read the whole discussion, the article and its history! I think the article in its present form is satisfactory, although the lead could be simplified a bit to make it clearer to readers with no a priori knowledge of the subject. The longstanding consensus on Wikipedia has been not to use the term "GNU/Linux" in referring to Linux-related subjects, including Linux distributions, as it is a POV term used by a very small minority of FSF supporters and almost no one else. In reading the whole history here I agree with User:Nigelj that much of the disagreement here seems to actually involve one editor trying to stealthily add the term "GNU/Linux" to the article while cloaking this move as some much bigger issue. - Ahunt (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here, Ahunt! With all input from other editors, it's now clear that my hair-pulling crusade wasn't oblivious. :) Sure thing, an article can always be better, and I'll see how the lead section could be simplified a bit. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Existence of distribution variants for laptops

The article currently contains:

Because of the huge availability of software, distributions have taken a wide variety of forms – including their fully featured desktop, server, laptop, netbook, mobile phone and tablet variants, as well as minimal environments typically for use in embedded systems.

At this point, no one has mentioned a single distribution with a laptop variant, let alone provided a reference supporting that. Having never seen such a thing, I have of course challenged the statement, but Nigelj has removed the tag, trying to justify saying that it was clearly possible to make an application of... an essay. Unless someone can at least provide an example, I will restore the tag. --Chealer (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement was changed to:
Because of the huge availability of software, distributions have taken a wide variety of forms, including those suitable for use on desktops, servers, laptops, netbooks, mobile phones and tablets, as well as minimal environments typically for use in embedded systems.
I have requested to specify what "forms suitable for use on desktops, servers, laptops, netbooks, mobile phones and tablets" are referred to. --Chealer (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

GNU's relevance is being grossly downplayed

From all the naming controversy and trolls on both sides of the GNU and anti-GNU camps, there seems to have formed an atmosphere where any attempt to improve the article's coverage of GNU is seen as a no-no, even if it doesn't touch on the naming controversy. Anyone who knows the structure of GNU/Linux distributions well should be aware that a typical distro consists primarily of components of the GNU operating system, outside of the kernel and certain low-level tools that need to play with the kernel (e.g. wpa-supplicant). The biggest examples would be the build toolchain (GCC, GNU Autotools, GNU Make, GNU binutils, etc.) which is used to build all the software in first place including the kernel; Glibc, which is the C library which virtually all software in the system links to; and GNU Bash, GNU coreutils, GNU findutils, GNU diffutils, GNU grep, GNU sed, GNU awk, etc. which all together form half of the POSIX environment of a typical distro, without which end-user applications won't run on the operating system, meaning they are part of the base operating system which hosts applications. GRUB is commonly the default bootloader as well. And I'm probably missing some important things. A commonly made mistake is to think "but these can be replaced by alternative implementations," which is a non-argument because Linux can be replaced by an alternative as well, as Debian GNU/kFreeBSD showcases; a typical GNU/Linux distro does, as a matter of fact, consist of parts of the GNU operating system and not the *possible* alternatives, just like how it uses Linux and not a *possible* alternative.

Someone has apparently even gone through the trouble to study the amount of GNU and other software in a typical distro (Ubuntu) based on lines of code, and Linux and GNU come out approximately equal. Should we be surprised? http://pedrocr.pt/text/how-much-gnu-in-gnu-linux/

Given that, why is there resistance to acknowledge that GNU is a defining component of GNU/Linux distributions, or "Linux" distributions as they're called by the public and thus Wikipedia? Going with faulty public terminology is fine, since leading to ignorance of GNU does not sufficiently contradict Wikipedia's code of ethics,(*) but are we banned even from simply being factually accurate in "Linux" related articles, explaining that it means "GNU" half of the time?

(*) If you don't believe that using the term "Linux" for GNU/Linux distributions(**) does not perpetuate factual misconceptions, let me give you an anecdote: I'm working at a software company in Germany, where we even use GNU/Linux servers for certain tasks, and everyone knows about "Linux," yet virtually none of the ~20 coworkers I had so far even knew what GNU essentially is before I told a few; exactly one of them had some basic knowledge. One confused it with the GPL, asking "isn't GNU that software license?" Another apparently fell for anti-GNU trolls on the Web, asking "you mean those guys who made a few small components decades ago and now still want credit?" He was somewhat confused when I pointed out that about half of the software in his operating system was in fact GNU software, still actively developed and maintained by the GNU project. These are people in the IT industry.

(**) Or just GNU distributions as I call them, since that's the OS, and its third-party kernel is a technical detail which I don't expect laypersons to care about. ;-)

(For those wondering, yes, the word "GNU" appears 33 times in the above paragraphs; feel free to be amused!) 80.72.254.242 (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "GNU and anti-GNU camps". Wikipedia is not interested in anyone's demands for credit. That is all covered in GNU/Linux naming controversy. We are editing here based on consensus terminology. "Linux distributions" are called that because of WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:LINUX. GNU is mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of the lede section, which is entirely appropriate for this article. Since your own ref shows that GNU makes up 8% of a typical distro and in fact some distros, like Android, use none at all, it does not need to be mentioned in every para. - Ahunt (talk) 12:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
You say it has nothing to do with GNU and anti-GNU camps (i.e. implying a sort of advocacy vs. non-advocacy), and yet you make it out to be a matter of advocacy (demands for credit). The naming controversy article covers only that: a controversy on what to name these systems. What I'm saying is, these systems do, as a fact, consist of GNU's operating system components to a very significant degree, and this fact is not always clearly represented on Wikipedia. Whether Android systems can be called "Linux distros" is a different matter entirely; I'm actually not aware of anyone calling them that, although they could say something vague like "Android is Linux too" in their typical over-simplification as a layperson. I'm pretty sure that the same kind of person would call Debian GNU/kFreeBSD "Linux" as well (because hey, it's Debian, and we all know Debian is a "distro" i.e. "Linux"), which really shows how absurd of a situation we're in. I hope I'm making myself clear here, because I already explained that I'm NOT talking about how to call things, and instead about the content of the relevant articles. In other words, if Wikipedia decided to put GNU distros under the "Linux" umbrella (which thus *primarily* consists of GNU distros), then I would expect Wikipedia to talk about GNU a great deal when it talks about "Linux." But nope, first you say "we decided to use the term 'Linux' for GNU distros," and then you barely talk about GNU when talking about these GNU distros. Is GNU software called "Linux" now or what, even when it's developed by the GNU project and has absolutely no ties to the Linux project? (I'm slightly exaggerating here, insisting on the notion of "GNU distros," to make my point more clear. That being said, it's not that big of an exaggeration, when you consider that GNU has always been a project to make a full operating system, and merely settled with Linux as a kernel, whereas Linux has always only been a kernel project; in other words the operating system has always been GNU, and Linux always only its third-party kernel, therefore it's not a stretch to call Debian, RedHat, Arch etc. "GNU distros" and not even "GNU/Linux distros.") 80.72.254.242 (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
These are all just Richard Stallman's old talking points. They have been fully addressed before in Talk:Linux including all the archives, as well as Talk:Linux/Name and Talk:GNU/Linux naming controversy. We have a longstanding consensus that these are called Linux distributions, based on WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Please actually read the discussion before joining in. 80.72.254.242 (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
As Ahunt already described it, and as I've noted in my edit summary, GNU components are already clearly mentioned in the article's lead section. If we wanted to rectify what's actually "grossly downplayed", that would be lack of mentioning large non-GNU components currently described mainly as "additional software", which are licensed under the MIT, Apache and other licenses. However, there's no need to list everything under the sun, and mentioning of the GNU components is there primarily to satisfy the members of the "GNU camp". As we know, there are no complaints from the "MIT camp", "Apache camp" or other "camps", though they would have around five times greater reasons why to requests their explicit mentioning. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
You're pretending that those pieces of MIT or other third-party software make up part of the base operating system that hosts applications, when in fact one is only an optional (albeit important) window system addition, and the other plainly a user-level application (HTTP server). As I already explained, GNU components make up significant portions (say half) of the actual operating system. You can look at POSIX if you want a somewhat formal definition of an operating system, and you will note that functionalities of X.Org and Apache are nowhere to be seen there, yet half or more of the standard is implemented by GNU. For what it's worth, I wouldn't be opposed to giving more attention to X.Org as well, because I can't count the times I had to give someone technical assistance on "Linux," and the actually relevant software was purely X.Org, and the same support would have applied to any other operating system running X.Org. On the other hand, there are many GNU distributions which offer X.Org only as an optional component (consider that it's useless especially on servers), whereas GNU-less Linux+whatever distributions are rather rare and obscure. 80.72.254.242 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
GNU components account for between 8% and 13% of a typical Linux distribution, see the reference. That's nowhere close to one half. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote more carefully. One possible formal definition of what comprises the base operating system in a Unix-like system is "the parts which implement the POSIX (Portable Operating System Interfaces) specification." By that measure, GNU is half or more of what makes the baseline of GNU/Linux operating systems (the rest depending greatly on the specific distribution). 80.72.254.242 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how much space GNU, Linux or any other component takes up in any or all given distros. GNU components could be 99% of any given distro, but we go by WP:CONSENSUS here on Wikipedia and the very longstanding consensus, based on WP:COMMONNAME, is that operating systems that are based on the Linux kernel are called "Linux distributions", because that is what the large majority of people, including the tech press, calls them. - Ahunt (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Please actually read the discussion before joining in. 80.72.254.242 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
What Ahunt said was entirely relevant to the discussion. We can create our own criteria for "well it's half of the baseline" all we want, but it's reliable sources that matter, not cherry-picked justification. - Aoidh (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I have read everything you have written, long as it is. At this point I am not even sure what you are arguing for anymore. You seem to be suggesting that this article title should be changed to "GNU distributions" rather than making a case for your edits that were reverted adding the term "GNU" to the first para. This talk page is specifically for discussing changes to the article and arriving at consensus on them. What changes to the article exactly are you arguing for here? - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
What Ahunt said was entirely irrelevant to the discussion, because nobody here suggested to use the term "GNU/Linux" on Wikipedia. If reading everything I wrote does not make clear what I'm arguing for, you might want to re-read it. If that still doesn't make it clear then please refrain from joining the discussion. I don't know what would make you think that I'm not arguing for the intro changes, although I'm making a much more general point on people immediately losing their minds whenever "GNU" shows up. Ahunt's misinterpretation of the whole situation is ironically further proof of exactly what I'm saying. I state explicitly that this isn't about "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux", and someone joins and says "well we decided on 'Linux'!" and others don't even see the problem. Can we please stop being fixated on the naming controversy? To rehash my point: "Linux distributions" as Wikipedia calls them virtually all consist of GNU components regarding the actual base operating system, excepting the kernel; this fact is not well-represented anywhere on Wikipedia, and attempts to improve this situation are being blocked because of people's fixation on the naming controversy where the conclusion was that these systems shall be called "Linux," in line with a large-scale terminological mistake in and outside the tech world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.254.242 (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
As it has been noted above, GNU components are already clearly mentioned in the article's lead section. We're describing Linux distributions as a whole, not only their base components. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
If that's the case, I would expect you to drop the mention of a package management system from the intro as well, since such a system isn't found in some "Linux distros." And that would leave us puzzled, asking whether Android, TiVo, some car's board computer OS are also "Linux distros." Public use of the term is incredibly vague, since it's based on ignorance and misconceptions, and trying to tame that vagueness isn't going to help Wikipedia. Indeed the "Linux" article is horrendous, but in this one there is at least some hope: acknowledge that "Linux distros" which don't have GNU in their core are relatively obscure exceptions, just like those which don't have a package management system (LFS, Slack until some point, OpenWRT I assume, ...), and refine the introduction to define a "Linux distro" in terms of the kernel (Linux), the rest of the operating system components (typically GNU), and typically a package management system. That's the "Linux distro" concept we've always known from Debian, RedHat, Arch, and all their derivatives (except that a lot of people are ignorant on the fact that they contain GNU to such a significant degree, which is where I would expect Wikipedia to step in as an entity that's supposed to educate people). 80.72.254.242 (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I have read what you have written many times, but somehow your inability to express yourself comprehensibly is the reader's problem? I asked above, and you failed to answer, and so I will ask again: what exactly are you proposing needs changing in this article? - Ahunt (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know why you want to think of everything in terms of what changes to make or not make to an article. I'm first of all describing a problem in editors' behavior; a problem which for instance manifests itself in you (or anyone else) trying to join this discussion and immediately sticking out the "no GNU/Linux, we decided on Linux!" flag, when no one even asked for "GNU/Linux" to be used in the article. This "no GNU/Linux" flag is being abused whenever someone wants to correct a "Linux"-related article on its coverage of GNU, regardless of what name is assigned to GNU or Linux distributions. For some possible concrete changes to the article, see the recent history of the article. (Maybe I should have pointed there earlier.) 2003:51:4A4B:F984:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with the history of this article, as I have been watching it and each change for many years, as well as working on it. The changes recently proposed have been rejected by several different editors. If you are not here to discuss direct and specific improvements to this article then this discussion does not belong here, as that is the sole reason for this talk page. It is not a general forum for griping about things, or for general discussion of the subject of the article. See the talk header at the top and also WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much all that the recent article changes introduced was additional focus on the GNU components in the lead section. As already noted more than a few times, there's simply no need for that, as the GNU components are already mentioned and explained. How many times do we need to repeat that? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
If, amongst all the excess verbiage above, that is all that this thread is trying to say, then I agree that the current two mentions of GNU in the lead section are entirely sufficient. The subject doesn't justify adding more mentions of it in the first or other paragraphs; that would be gratuitous and promotional. - Ahunt (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a mountain of differences between mentioning GNU components on the same level as X.Org, documentation, a window manager, a desktop environment, and "additional software"; and acknowledging that it's a defining component of what Wikipedia calls a "Linux distro." As it stands, the article grossly trivializes GNU software; it's on *at least* the same level of factual inaccuracy as saying that Linux distros are "based on the GNU operating system and usually a package manager" and mentioning Linux only in a following paragraph together with X.Org and what have you. In other words, you still refuse to acknowledge what I mentioned in the opening post of this section (that GNU software is central, significant, and intrinsic in what we call "Linux distros"); you still dismiss my proposed factual correction of the article as "gratuitous and promotional," which is exactly the anti-GNU behavioral problem I'm describing. In the "Linux v. GNU/Linux" archives, I see a great deal of people acknowledging that "Linux distros" are, in fact, GNU/Linux; the naming debate was ended not by deciding that Linux is the defining component, but purely by the popularity of the misnomer. But now you are carrying over that mistake from the mere name of the article, to its actual content; a terminological mistake (accepted due to popularity) turns into an ontological mistake (which should be unacceptable on Wikipedia). I'm not really surprised, since the words we use shape our thinking, and using the term "Linux" to describe GNU systems using the Linux kernel leads to people seeing Linux as the sole defining component, but that is wrong, and the next best thing we can do to reverting the naming conclusion (which ain't gonna happen) is to make it clear in the very first sentence(s) of the article that a "Linux distro" is, in fact, an operating system distribution defined primarily by the presence of GNU operating system components and the Linux kernel, all else being mostly secondary. 2003:51:4A4B:F984:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
That's your point of view, which I respect, but that simply isn't enough to justify described and recent changes to the article. By the way, X.Org, for example, is far away from being just some secondary component, as modern Linux desktops simply aren't feasible without it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
What I say are not a point of view but verifiable facts, though not in the form Wikipedia would desire. (You could install a couple dozen GNU distros and see for yourself what parts tend to be most invariable across them.) X.Org is secondary because many distributions, some major, lack it in some standard installations (Debian, Arch, Gentoo, probably RedHat too) because it's unnecessary for a whole class of users (server administrators). On the other hand, no GNU/Linux distro will function at all if you rip out the GNU components: nearly no software at all will run without the GNU C library, no scripts will run without the shell and unix toolbox implemented by GNU, etc. (Yes, you could jump through hoops to use alternative implementations of these to leave no GNU in your Linux distro, just like you could jump through hoops to replace the kernel and leave no Linux in your GNU distro; in the normal case however, you have both, meaning you have a GNU/Linux distro, which is what I'd like the article to explain in its content even if it won't use the "GNU/Linux" name.) 2003:51:4A4B:F984:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you see what you wrote? The actual intention is to rename the article to "GNU/Linux", and everything else serves just as a cover. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you being serious? 2003:51:4A4B:F984:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I've just read what you wrote. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Then you're being absurd, and this is the most polite way I can put this. Either leave my edits to the article alone, or try to reason along with me. 2003:51:4A4B:F984:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Why would it be necessary for anyone to share your reasoning? It's perfectly fine to have different opinions, out of which some go along with a longstanding consensus, and some don't. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not a matter of opinionated reasoning. It's a fact that "Linux distros" generally consist of the GNU operating system using the Linux kernel. I've explained this above in depth and actually hoped that the people watching over this article would be aware of such a simple technical fact, especially given that most people in the "Linux vs. GNU/Linux" archives seem to be aware of it. To put this bluntly one more time: Linux distros may be called so, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a group of operating systems whose baseline is the combination of GNU and Linux, i.e. GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux distributions (not in terms of name, but in terms of ontological reality); the article pretends that their baseline is only Linux ("and usually a package management system"), and wrongly lists GNU together with components that are optional and left out in many distributions. If you're now going to argue that there are *some* Linux distributions without GNU, then I'd like to point out that the only thing making those "Linux distros" any more "Linux distro" than e.g. Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is the fact that we wrongly choose the term "Linux distro." The only thing that keeps us from calling Debian GNU/kFreeBSD a "Linux distro" is that doing so surpasses the amount of absurdity that is otherwise tolerated: calling GNU/Linux distros "Linux distros" seems acceptable because at least they *contain* Linux, whereas GNU/kFreeBSD doesn't even contain any Linux; other than that, Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is as much a "Linux distro" (in this vague, mistaken terminology) as any other; put any "Linux" user into Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and she will say "yup, seems to be a Linux distro." 2003:51:4A4B:F93F:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
That's still your opinion (repeated many times), which I respect but don't share. Put a Joe Average in front of a Linux or FreeBSD installation with no GUI and he will say "crap, this is DOS"; thus, such a comparison counts for pretty much nothing. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a fact, repeated many times, that "Linux distros" consist of the GNU operating system using the Linux kernel. And no, a halfway experienced Debian, Gentoo or Arch user will not mistake a GNU/kFreeBSD system for DOS; they will mistake it for GNU/Linux. 80.72.254.242 (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
That is your opinion, and hardly a "fact". By longstanding consensus here Linux distros are distinguished by being based on the Linux kernel alone. Some use some GNU tools and libraries and some, like Android, use none. A GNU operating system would be one that uses the Hurd kernel. That is still under development, but is still not operational ready yet. - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a fact. Care to count me the number of Linux distributions that aren't built around GNU? Android and its variants are not Linux distributions. Neither is TiVo, or the software of your automobile's board computer, or any other such embedded system that happens to use Linux. Referring to the Hurd is wrong too, for there is Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, which is clearly the GNU operating system (Debian's variant thereof), using the FreeBSD kernel. It is not a FreeBSD distribution; no FreeBSD user would call it one, and every GNU user (i.e. "Linux distro" user) who has some minimal technical aptitude to be able to tell apart a GNU and a BSD system will be able to tell that it is GNU, unlikely realizing that it uses the FreeBSD kernel instead of Linux unless she digs deeper into the system. Also, I'm not aware of a consensus on what a "Linux distro" is defined as; I'm only aware of a consensus of calling GNU/Linux distributions "Linux distributions" on Wikipedia. That naming mistake is adopted from public use, but we should not allow it to muddy the waters any worse and make people think that Linux distributions aren't generally comprised of the GNU operating system using the Linux kernel, which they are, with exceptions being approximately as few as GNU distributions not using the Linux kernel. Both non-Linux GNU systems, and non-GNU Linux systems, are exceptions, the general case being GNU/Linux systems, which we call Linux distros. 80.72.254.242 (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
GNU components are already clearly mentioned twice in the article's lead section. Thus, please, consider whether it's the time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@80.72.254.242: Thank you man for taking positive act for explaining why people should avoid using "Linux distro" when talking about the operating systems containing the kernel Linux: I totally agree with what you said since I don't find any logical or technical way to prove its opposite. Moreover, don't forget that GNOME itself is part of the GNU Project: so GNU is about 90% from such GNU/Linux distro, Linux is about 6% and 4% for the rest including X. "GNU distro" (or "GNU/Linux distro") and "Android distro" is the more correct naming than idiotic "Linux distro" which creates confusion between GNU and other operating systems like Android, and means no more or less the distribution of the kernel Linux, as a piece of software, in source form or binary form (like in a debian kernel package) as what the GNU GPLv2 permits ...
Unfortunately this is not the only issue in wikipedia, there is a lot of other unsolved issues behind other consensus, and as those pro-consensus zealots don't find a technical way to persuade other people: all people should consider them as little unmanly cowards and boycott this catastrophic encyclopedia under a hypocritical name "the Free Encyclopedia" which is not at all "Free" (as in freedom) and nothing more than a project done by the U.S as an instrument to control people minds via a proletarian dictatorial law which restricts any honnest contribution against the consensus, which is a greatest insult for such contributor, and then promoting the monopoly lead by the U.S over all the world: The thing which should get its end. 197.27.111.19 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Greatly simplifying your opponents arguments and then dismissing them doesn't wash here and is bordering on uncivil. You have made your case, at very, very great length and at the expense of clarity, but, regardless, no one else agrees with your assertions. The fact that you have no specific proposals for new wording doesn't help your arguments, either. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. - Ahunt (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me? Who is simplifying whose arguments here? I would understand if you said I'm complexifying things. My proposal on improved wording is in the edit history. 2003:51:4A4B:F984:213:E8FF:FEED:36FB (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Your proposals in the article were reverted and it is here that you are supposed to be making your case for them, but have failed to do so in any sort of convincing manner. So there is no consensus to include your changes. - Ahunt (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linux_distribution/Archive_3&oldid=731536255"