Talk:Linux

I've personally removed the Unix shell information as it's unfounded, and want to have a bigger public weigh in on the suggestion that Linux uses the "Unix" shell.

Linux as both a kernel and an operating system doesn't require a shell, nor is there one specific shell in use. There's no founding for the suggestion that there's a shell at all.

While historically many Linux distributions opted to use sh / bash to run sysv as their init system, it wasn't strictly necessary. /bin/init / /sbin/init can be any binary that acts as an init system reaping processes, children, and zombies.

However, my biggest issue is to suggest the idea that the default is a Unix shell when there is no default. Powershell is available on Linux, so we could easily put Windows Powershell as the shell. So I've removed it as being irrelevant and unfounded.

Also I've added that Linux is inspired by Unix, and this is cited in multiple sources on the history of Linux page. ^[1], And redhead has a great article stating similar facts about Unix being one of the inspirations of Linux ^[2]

Even in the Linux article there's this line "It was with this course that Torvalds first became exposed to Unix. In 1991, he became curious about operating systems.[69]".

Or in simpler terms, is it wrong to say Linux was influenced by Unix? I simply want some public weigh in on this edit in the event it does prove to be controversial.

If someone has a source that says that Linux relies on a Unix like shell and can't work with any other type of shell, I'd be more than happy to backtrack on that edit.

TotallyNotSkyNet (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll probably weigh in on this discussion later, but for now I just wanted to thank you for—as a new user—not getting into an edit war and instead following WP:BRD. I think your perspective might have some weight, and I would've hated to see it lost due to WP:3RR. Cheers, /home/gracen/ (they/them) 15:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It would not to be wrong to say that Linux was influenced by Unix.

It wouldn't even be wrong to say that Linux is Unix-compatible (to the extent that any Unix or Unix-like system is completely compatible with any other such system; one requirement of something being a Un*x is that is has to do at least one thing differently from all other Un*xes :-)).

It would be wrong to say that Linux - or Solaris or AIX or FreeBSD or HP-UX or macOS or... - relies on a Unix like shell and can't work with any other type of shell. It could, for example, have a full-screen curses-based user interface (such as AIX's SMIT) for administrative purposes, have some program replace init scripts - or, with a "process 1" program such as launchd or systemd, not have init scripts per se - and could provide curses-based or Web-based application interfaces for users. It'd probably require some work to make sure nothing depended on running shell scripts, but it could probably be done.

It would also be wrong to say that non-Unix shells can't run on Unix-like systems; there's an implementation of the Digital Command Language for Linux and Windows (https://sector7.com/technical/vx-dcl-vms-dcl) and another one that is claimed to run on some unspecified "Unix"es (https://www.oneadvanced.com/siteassets/resources/application-modernization-collateral/advanced_fact_sheet_open_dcl.pdf), and as nted, PowerShell also runs on some Un*xes.

In practice, though, the best-known non-embedded Linux distributions default to a Unix-style shell, usually Bash, just as most other non-embedded Un*xes do. Guy Harris (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

https://open.substack.com/pub/weeklyrust/p/rust-is-officially-part-of-linux?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&shareImageVariant=overlay&r=3ea750

I think we can no add rust to the list ~2025-41654-52 (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Or, for a more official statement, Miguel Ojeda (13 December 2025). "[PATCH] rust: conclude the Rust experiment". linux-kernel (Mailing list)., as well as "The (successful) end of the kernel Rust experiment". lwn.net. 10 December 2025.. Guy Harris (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Alex rosenberg35, but it isn't play a minor role anymore ~2026-27193-3 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The Homepage points to the Linux Kernel, not the Linux Operating System.

Either this Link should be replaced with an Link to the Linux Operating System or removed because this is misleading and confusing people with the Linux Kernel. ~2026-33470-5 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no such thing as one "Linux Operating System". There are multiple different distributions, all based on the Linux kernel. As the article says, "Thousands of Linux distributions exist". Meters (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Due to the prevailing role software from the GNU project plays in the present day systems, it is relevant to mention near the top of the page the importance of GNU software and it should not be relegated deep into the article. User:Aoidh undid a change to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux&oldid=1340569658 on the grounds that the GNU project is mentioned, however the importance and prevaling role of the GNU project is not communicated clearly communicated. Here is an analysis of the article up to the point where GNU is first properly addressed. GNU is first mentioned in regards to the naming controvercy, then later as a historical note as a reason Linux was started. Next GNU is mentioned along with 386BSD to point out that they do not have Unix code which is hardly relevant. The next time the word GNU appears is in the GNU General Public License which is not the same as GNU software, and so such mentions of GNU should be ignored for this issue. Then while GNU project is talked about in the history section, it under "Precursors" which does not indicate GNU's relevant role in present day systems. Again under the same history section this time under "Creation" there is vague talk about GNU having to do with the history of Linux and this does not speak to the present day prevailing use of GNU software. Under section "Development" there is the first real mention of the use of GNU software in these systems, however even here it does not clearly communicate the fact that most systems use GNU software. Finally it is in the "Design" section that the GNU userland is for the first time acknowledged as a key part of most of the systems. The fact is that most systems today use GNU software and the GNU project is absolutely relevant and worthy of mention at the top of the article to tie it to the systems using the Linux kernel. The GNU project is not a techical detail that belongs in the design section as the first time it is properly addrsssed as a "key part of most systems based on the Linux kernel", this belongs to the top of the article. ~2026-12746-18 (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1340569658 is the edit in question. Changing the target of Open source to Free and open-source software while making it look like the link still takes you to Open source is somewhat of an WP:EGG issue. Saying that Linux includes {{most commonly software from the GNU Project}} depends on what you consider "most commonly" to be, and is contradicted by other content in the lede and article. The obvious example is that Android (operating system) is by far the most commonly used Linux-based operating system (and is the most commonly used of any operating system: Usage share of operating systems), most versions of which contain little to no GNU software. The current text in the lede about emphasizing the use and importance of GNU software in many distributions already addresses GNU software (with sources) without the unsourced ambiguity about what "most common" might mean. - Aoidh (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The open source thing I did was a mistake. "Most" would mean most systems distributions. I accept that my contribution there was bad and I don't need my revision to be reinstated but I want this issue to be considered, however I will retain my stance as stated here in the Talk, that the GNU project is still important enough I believe it belongs to the top of an article. As I said GNU is not a technical detail to be hidden deep in the article. I realize Wikipedia has for better or worse taken a side on the GNU/Linux naming controversy, but I do not believe this is grounds to obfuscate the presence of GNU on the system which I perceive this article to be doing. GNU is a very real part of the scene. ~2026-12746-18 (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)