Talk:Linux/Archive 36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about Linux. 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 30

←

→

Linux Page

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like you to say that Linux Mint is based off of Ubuntu. QuantumKnowledge (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? Linux Mint is not mentioned in this article, and that's not what the article is about, why is this clarification necessary at Linux, when it's already provided at the appropriate article? - Sudo Ghost 22:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Damn Vulnerable Linux

Is Damn Vulnerable Linux still a useful Linux release? --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Who knows? It was you who added it to the article. I suggest it might be better in List of Linux distributions, which this article is not. --Nigelj (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Now added to the List of Linux distributions.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Pardus

Whats about the GNU/Linux OS from the Turkey Gov/Military: Pardus ?

My English is sad and its missing under the point "Commercial and Popular Uptake" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardus_(operating_system) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.72.154 (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Page title

It seems to me that people do not understand the topic well. So I'll clarify: There are two views, one that tells the operating system is the kernel (Andrew S. Tanenbaum and maybe Linus Torvalds). The other view is Richard Stallman, the kernel is a part of the operating system.

The only contradiction between these views is what is an operating system.

But the name of these articles is a complete confusion between these views. Neither assumes the position of this article. We are using the term operating system to refer to something that is not the kernel. But calling it Linux.

In both views the article should refer to the Linux kernel.

But one of them say the kernel is the operating system and do not speak anything other than the kernel.

In another made it clear that Linux is a kernel, not an operating system and do not speak anything other than the kernel.

So both views agree to use the term "Linux" to refer to the kernel and nothing else.

Therefore a reasonable interpretation of these two views say:

The article Linux refers to nothing more than the kernel
The proper name of this article is "Linux based systems", or distributions that use the Linux kernel.
When we say Linux based systems we talk about GNU/Linux and Android.
Never use the name Linux to refer to Linux-based systems.
If you want to use Linux to refer to something other than the kernel, the proper name is GNU/Linux or Android.

--Gonzalfj (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is right in my opinion. Could we change the name to "Linux based systems"?

By the way, Linus Torvalds doesn't think that a kernel (Linux in this case) is an operating system; because he knows enough about the issue
Right now, the most forked distribution is Debian (far), the one with most derivatives in the 'Linux based systems' community; and it's Debian GNU/Linux

Riveravaldez (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Torvalds doesn't seem to think of kernels as operating systems. Just to reference some of his opinions, read here: Linux_naming_controversy#cite_ref-21 --Isacdaavid (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I support that idea, however, maybe "Linux Operating System" would be more descriptive? Ziiike (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The common name for this subject is Linux, since the majority of reliable sources describe Linux as an operating system. That Linux is also the name of a kernel does not change this, since the two are not mutually exclusive. - Sudo Ghost 23:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost, a linux.org website is not going to be an impartial or reliable source about the subject. I think Wikipedia is, and actually, the whole Wikipedia itself except this very singular article refers to Linux as a kernel and not an OS.

(Reliable) sources:

More information Article, Statement ...

Article	Statement
Debian	Debian is a computer operating system [...]
Ubuntu_(operating_system)	Ubuntu is a computer operating system [...]
Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux	Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is a Linux-based operating system [...]

The previous articles assert that Linux-based distributions are named "operating system". Would you sustain rather that all these Wikipedia articles are dumb or that an operating system, such as Debian, is itself constituted of some "integrated" operating system called Linux?

Other Wikipedia references:

More information Article, Language ...

Article	Language	Translation	Original
Linux	Italian	Linux is a family of operating systems [...]	Linux è una famiglia di sistemi operativi [...]
Linux	Spanish	Linux is a free operating system kernel [...]	Linux es un núcleo libre de sistema operativo [...]
Linux	Polish	Linux is a family of Unix-like operating systems [...]	Linux rodzina uniksopodobnych systemów operacyjnych opartych [...]

These articles instead consider Linux as a class of GNU distributions, probably because this designation is becoming more popular. None, however, sustain that a kernel is an operating system.

Medende (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather base this article on third-party reliable sources, instead of what other editors decided to place in other articles. The overwhelming majority of third-party reliable sources certainly aren't calling it "GNU/Linux" or "a class of GNU distributions". - Sudo Ghost 03:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact the Spanish article states it's a kernel, not even a distro. I say GNU with Linux when referring to GNU/Linux, GNU for GNU, GNU Hurd or just GNU for the complete GNU system, and explicitly say Linux kernel when referring to the Linux kernel (what Linux actually is). That's just my opinion, but now that I'm a bit more knowledgeable about the topic I avoid saying just Linux as much as possible, even for the kernel, because of the high amount of ambiguity and confusion all this mess has brought. Correctness over simplicity or laziness or popularity, as simple as that. It isn't that hard.

So I also support renaming this to something like Linux-based operating systems, provided that GNU/Linux is going to redirect there. (Or perhaps GNU/Linux deserves another article, just as Android has its own despite being a Linux-based system). But the most important question is: What would we do with the Linux page in case of renaming? I know that the old name would point to the new one by default, but I have also considered making Linux, which is the usually misunderstood and troubled term, a redirection to Linux_(disambiguation); because the latter already contains all the possible related articles that different users with different standpoints could be looking for.--Isacdaavid (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a few problems with that though. One, es.wikipedia operates separately from en.wikipedia; they have their own consensus, their own ways of doing things, and how one operates does not affect the other. Two, you're going on the assumption that "Linux is just the kernel" is the truth, and "GNU/Linux is what it's really called" is also the truth, but these are just opinions, and minority opinions at that. If the FSF had the authority to name the system, I have no doubt that it would have been challenged in court, and steps would have been taken to address this, but the FSF has no authority on that matter, so the best they can do is attempt to persuade others to refer to it in that manner. Therefore it isn't accurate to say "GNU/Linux is the official and correct name and Linux is just the kernel, this article's title is just wrong", because that's not the case. It's not a matter of "correctness over simplicity", because what you're saying is "correct" is just an opinion. Wikipedia articles use what reliable sources use to describe the subject, per WP:COMMONNAME. - Sudo Ghost 23:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I know each version of Wikipedia works independently (more or less). What I said about the es.wikipedia article isn't a thought, but a fact that was supposed to amend previous comment by Medende who incorrectly stated that es.wikipedia considered Linux as a class of GNU distribution; and you've misinterpreted it all as if it were fair enough to change en.wikipedia. I think I made it very clear that I just wanted to share my views on this debate (where else?), but there are always people like you, unable to tolerate a simple opinion, believing they are in the middle of a flamewar. Minorities also know the policies, so please don't underrate them. It's very likely you're part of one for other topics... By the way, what the hell was that of courts and persuasion techniques? As far as I know none (not even the FSF) can or will change the name of a system comprised by so many different projects, thousands of authors and milliards of users. How could someone start a trial against someone else recommending a name for such an abstract thing? Why so scared?

It's odd how your reply is a "simple opinion", and mine is "intolerance". You seemed to have summed up my point for me though: if not even the FSF can change the name, then it's unrealistic to expect this article to change, when reliable sources aren't calling it "GNU/Linux". Until "GNU/Linux" is the WP:COMMONNAME, this article won't use that as the title. That's the point. - Sudo Ghost 05:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

What do the parts inside Linux do? (Linux Kernel, GNU coreutils and libraries)

Hi!

Here's a suggestion: lets mentions the jobs and tasks that the different parts of Linux (or GNU/Linux: or however you like to call it) do:
diff
Recommendation:

The term Linux properly refers to just the operating system kernel, which by itself is rather unfunctional and limited^[1], since it additionally requires libraries, system tools, compilers, shell, etc. For desktop, server and embedded usage, the Linux kernel is typically combined with packages from the GNU project, in order to realize a usable system; the combination often being termed ‘Linux’ in popular parlance, while the GNU project recommends ‘GNU/Linux’.^[2] The combination consists of:

Linux kernel
The Linux kernel is hardware-near software that allows running of the system on a large variety of computer-architectures and implements program scheduling, multitasking, device drivers, memory management, etc.^[3] Torvalds released the Linux kernel under the GNU General Public License in 1992;^[4] it is however not part of the GNU project.^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]
GNU packages^[9]^[10]
The GNU packages consists of numerous operating system tools and utilities (shell, coreutils, compilers (GCC), libraries, etc.)^[9]^[10] including a library implementation of all of the functions specified in POSIX System Application Program Interface (POSIX.1).^[11]^[12] The GCC compiler can generate machine-code for a large variety of computer-architectures.

There are a number of available distros (distributions) that combine these parts to a usable system, usually also including additional third-party non-GNU components (e.g. kernel modules and user applications and libraries). Android is another operating system, which also uses the Linux kernel but includes different components from most desktop GNU/Linux distributions.

So lets mention that the Linux kernel is low level software (scheduling, multitasking, drivers, etc.) and GNU packages are higher level (POSIX function implementation, libraries, compilers, shell)
To those who are only interested in the name (Linux, GNU/Linux): this is another issue. Replace every occurrence of GNU/Linux with Linux if that makes you feel good... The recommendation above is about naming what the different parts in the system do, not how their composition is called.
Hnfiurgds (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

References

[1]
Linus Torvalds: Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software [...] Notes for linux release 0.01
[2]
Weeks, Alex (2004). "1.1". Linux System Administrator's Guide (version 0.9 ed.). Retrieved 18 January 2007.
[3]
The Linux Kernel Archives
[4]
Release Notes for Linux v0.12
[5]
Should the GNU/name convention be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed? GNU/Linux FAQ by Richard Stallman
[6]
Why do you write “GNU/Linux” instead of “GNU Linux”? GNU/Linux FAQ by Richard Stallman
[7]
Isn't it wrong for us to label Linus Torvalds' work as GNU? GNU/Linux FAQ by Richard Stallman
[8]
Does Linus Torvalds agree that Linux is just the kernel? GNU/Linux FAQ by Richard Stallman
[9]
All GNU packages (gnu.org)
[10]
GNU @ Free Software Directory (fsf.org)
[11]
POSIX - The GNU C Library
[12]
GNU_C_Library#A_temporary_fork

Linux is a KERNEL, Not an OS

Linux on its own is not an operating system. It's a *kernel* and framework upon which LInux-based OSes work from. Can anyone provide reliable factual evidence that Linux is an OS and not a kernel (on its own)? Because GNU/Linux is an OS, but Linux on its own isnt. --TrekCaptainUSA (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To save everybody's time, let me quote from the header of this talk page: "Can we rename this page to GNU/Linux? No, the vast majority of people and companies call it Linux, and we already mention the alternate name in the lead and its own subsection." man with one red shoe 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't redirect? [Linux => Linux Based Systems] Linux is a kernel, not an operating system (ask Linus Torvalds if you want). Saying that is like saying than a V8 is an automobile. Right now GNU, for instance, represents around 15% of the general operating system code in most distributions, while Linux represents less than a 2%.http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html + http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.en.html Riveravaldez (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Because that has been discussed and rejected as a proposal many, many times. "GNU/Linux" is a minority fringe naming of the subject, and isn't what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use to describe the subject. - Sudo Ghost 13:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we are facing a mistake counting the pro and con opinions each time this question comes out. From a large pool of people sustaining the Linux=kernel idea, each time comes somebody new, never seen before, to express his rightful opinion. Then, always the same little oligarchy that literally owns the article blocks the newcomer with its great majority of 4-5 persons against the single. If we go back in the archive and count all the ones that have expressed themselves favorable to call Linux only what it is, a kernel, we likely discover that those are the great majority.

However, keeping your joke that Wikipedia must reflect the widespread common knowledge rather than reflect the "right, correct principles of the elite", you too are failing to play this game right two chapters above where I discussed "Linux as a _family_ of operating systems". Doesn't the common knowledge understand Linux (or, better, GNU/Linux) as a family of operating systems, rather then as a single OS being, under your opinion, be erroneously referred to with wrong names such as Debian, Ubuntu, etc.?

This again is your game to play Wikipedia's rules under you own tastes, those of a minor elite that prevents the great majority of us from editing our article the right way.

Medende (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind that this article is not related only with GNU/Linux, but also treats on mobile systems like Android, which has nothing to do with GNU.--Luizdl (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Luizdl, of course those specific sections can easily be moved to a more comprehensive Linux article not directly related with GNU and more loose on the concept of Linux-based OSes. The whole article has been forced to grown wonky upon a wrong base title improperly named "Linux".

Medende (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about "truth" (and by the way, who establishes the truth?), it's about using verified sources, most of the sources use the "incorrect" term the way is used in this page, according to Wikipedia naming policies this is the name we should use even if you consider it incorrect. Any arguments about its validity or invalidity are red herrings because we cannot establish here on Wikipedia what's the correct use of words, what we can do here we can establish what is the majority use in reliable sources. If you can prove that majority of sources use GNU/Linux then we'll change the name of the article, otherwise please don't waste the time of editors with things that have been discussed over and over for years. man with one red shoe 00:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm absolutely with your opinion. But then, even without starting digging into search engines for this and speaking with data out of the hand, what is the absolutely most common way to refer to Linux? As a family of operating system comprising Debian and Ubuntu for example, or as a single OS? I think I won't need to present references for this. You'd be kidding if this isn't an hypocritical play of Wikipedia rules.

Medende (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's me the hypocrite... yet, I keep seeing titles like Red Hat: the first billion dollar Linux company has arrived or this that mentions "Meet Red Hat: the billion-dollar Linux company." I somehow don't feel the need to ask them what do they mean by "Linux company". Please troll the news writers first to write the "correct" name or to specify exactly what they mean by "Linux" and then come back here. Talking about hypocrisy, it's hypocrisy to come with a claim that we don't know what writers mean by "Linux" because it serves your interests to promote your truth in this article. man with one red shoe 12:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That stance of "Linux is a more popular term than GNU/Linux" is questionable. Why did you not mention Debian GNU/Linux? There are many software projects and companies which prefer GNU/Linux (now I feel like making a list) and yet none seems to use them to argument against the sole usage of "Linux" to refer to something bigger than the Linux kernel. By the way, thanks to the OP for taking back this debate which is clearly unsolved and shouldn't have been dismissed from the English Wikipedia as if it were a de facto consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isacdaavid (talk • contribs) 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, using Linux as a name for GNU/Linux and related operating systems based on the kernel is slang and should we really have slang/colloquial as names for wikipedia pages? I'll admit to using Linux in daily speech, but I'm still a strong advocate of GNU/LInux and that what my grub entry says. Just imagine the uproar if the penis page was suddenly named dick. ;)

83.233.6.169 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The article says that Linux is an operating system, which is not the same the same thing as the Linux kernel. "The Linux operating system" must have some defining characteristic that makes it a single thing, and not refer to any operating system which uses the Linux kernel. If such a definition can be reached, Android is probably not included because so many of the user space programs used are so different to those used in other Linux-based operating systems. It is possible that there is so much diversity among Linux-based operating systems that it would be incorrect to say that they are a versions of single "Linux operating system". (The situation may have changed since previous discussions on this Wikipedia talk page, e.g. with the popularity of Android.) I think that a title like "Linux-based operating system" or "Overview of operating systems based on the Linux kernel" would be better. Count Truthstein (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

All of the defining characteristics of Linux (or Unix for that matter) are in the kernel: process handling, char/block devices, ... GNU is simply a layer on top that doesn't really define anything. You can't make a Linux OS by adding all of the GNU tools to a (say) FreeBSD kernel - and call it Linux - on the other hand you can remove all of the GNU tools... and it would still be Linux (and still be an operating system). Embedded Linux is a good example of this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's tautological to say that the defining characteristics of Linux are in the kernel because Linux *is* a kernel. It's false to say that all of the defining characteristics of Unix are in the kernel. (Examples are the common Unix commands, the convention of using programs that communicate via pipes, the Unix directory structure, etc., and GNU handles some of that.) It's tautological to say that you can't make a Linux OS without Linux. (You can't make a GNU OS without GNU either. So what?) It's irrelevant to say that you can make a Linux OS without GNU. (You can make a GNU OS without Linux.) What is the point you're trying to make here? I'm sure we all know that neither absolutely requires the other, although in practice they are almost always used together, and what is commonly called "Linux" refers to the combination of GNU and Linux and some other software, with GNU comprising the plurality of it -- ten times as much as Linux. If "GNU/Linux" is used so rarely as to be irrelevant, then the use of "Linux" to refer to non-GNU systems is surely an order of magnitude less relevant.

In answer to Count Truthstein, I would simply say that the defining characteristic of a "Linux operating system" is that it uses Linux (the kernel) and Android is clearly included in that definition. He may have a point in that the thing that you call "Linux" describes Android as well, yet you don't call Android "Linux". You may say it's a weak argument because the primary creator of Android -- Google -- calls it "Android". And it may remain a weak argument, but I would still note that the primary creator of "Linux" (the operating system) is the GNU Project, and they call it "GNU/Linux". If someone argues "the primary creator, Linus, calls it 'Linux'", then they are only referring to the kernel (since that's what Linus created), and the same argument can be turned around to say "well, the primary creator of the 'Linux operating system', the GNU Project, calls it 'GNU/Linux'". Anyway, Android is closely analogous to GNU/Linux. GNU/Linux is the userspace (largely comprised of GNU) plus Linux, the kernel. Android is the userspace (largely provided by Google) plus Linux, the kernel. If one is to use clear and consistent definitions of terms, then it would be inconsistent to insist on calling GNU/Linux "Linux" while calling Android "Android". However, if you simply go by popularity, then I cannot argue.

And I believe you are wrong to stick to such a pedantic definition of an operating system ('the layer that mediates between the hardware and the userspace'). By that reasoning, MS-DOS and Windows are not operating systems, but aggregations that include small operating systems inside of them somewhere. (They have parts that interface with the hardware, i.e. kernels or "operating systems" as you use the term, but they are not named after their kernels. The MS-DOS kernel has no name, and the Windows kernel has at times been unnamed or referred to by an internal codename only.) "Unix" as popularly used, like "Windows" and "MS-DOS", has always referred to the entire system of software, including the userspace. Just as Unix, Windows, and MS-DOS are operating systems, GNU and GNU/Linux are operating systems too. On the other hand, Linux cannot power any machine by itself; it needs a userspace (even if it's only init). It's ridiculous to say that Linux is an operating system when it cannot make a computer operate. Linux always forms a part of an operating system; it is the kernel of it.

That said, I must grudgingly admit that "Linux" is probably the name that best fits Wikipedia's official policies and should be chosen when there's a dispute, but I strongly disagree with Chris Cunningham's one man crusade to bulk-replace references to "GNU/Linux" on Wikipedia with "Linux", unilaterally overruling the many people who worked on those articles. 184.78.155.105 (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"I would still note that the primary creator of "Linux" (the operating system) is the GNU Project, and they call it "GNU/Linux" " -- How so? Creators of Linux distributions are different companies and communities that use free code that's available to them. They get to name their final products, not whoever wrote the original code. Even more, I highly doubt that GNU part is the majority of the code in a Linux distribution, actually it's not even the biggest part. I am glad though that you agree that Linux fits the best Wikipedia's naming policies. man with one red shoe 18:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What's especially tedious about this recurring argument is consistent confusion between operating systems and applications. Just because applications are commonly distributed with an operating system does not make them part of the operating system. Within the field of serious computer science, the term operating system has some specific meaning, correctly reflected in the opening paragraph of our own Operating system article: "An operating system (OS) is a set of programs that manage computer hardware resources and provide common services for application software. The operating system is a vital component of the system software in a computer system. Application programs require an operating system which are usually separate programs, but can be combined in simple systems." Using the term as it's understood within the field, the operating system is Linux, not GNU anything. The GNU stuff is all application layer. Msnicki (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to feed this infinite troll... What's especially tedious about this recurring argument is consistent confusion between operating systems and kernel. A kernel alone doesn't operate anything. Applications cannot talk with it (like in provide common services for application software) without at least a libc (which most common flavor for Linux is... know what?... GNU C Library as in GNU/Linux) A kernel alone cannot even boot by itself, without a bootloader (I won't tell that the most common Linux bootloader is GNU GRUB. Yes, as in GNU/Linux). And the list is quite long. Without userspace tools, without an init system, that mounts the disks in the right order, spawns the ttys etc, my computer computes as much as my teapot does and can hardly seen as running an operating system (if the definition of operating hasn't change since the last time I checked) 78.229.224.75 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That's perfectly right and I agree completely. People saying the opposite shouldn't be editing this article, because clearly don't know what are they talking about. Riveravaldez (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be merged into this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel all the information relating specifically to the kernel should be moved there, and this page should be used to describe Linux systems specifically, as in systems that use the Linux kernel, I agree that GNU is not required for Linux to function, yet something is required to make it run, as Msnickiar said, an application layer. This page should not be renamed, GNU/Linux, as not all systems use GNU. It should be renamed Linux Systems, which while describing GNU/Linux, also describes, Systems such as Android, which do not use GNU, and all kernel specific information should be moved to the Linux Kernel Page Ziiike (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't be better (instead of Linux Systems) Linux Based Systems? Riveravaldez (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the first and second paragraphs of this article can be modified as follows:

paragraph 1:

Linux (i/ˈlɪnəks/ lin-əks or /ˈlɪnʊks/ lin-uuks) is a Unix-like computer operating system kernel assembled under the model of free and open source software development and distribution. The defining component of a Linux-based operating system is the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released 5 October 1991 by Linus Torvalds. The Linux-based operating system is usually abbreviated as the Linux operating system or Linux.

paragraph 2:

The term Linux properly refers to just the operating system kernel itself, but generally using Linux kernel to express the meaning. In popular parlance ‘Linux’ is used to refer to a complete Linux Distribution which includes GUI components and many other utilities, many of which are supplied by the GNU Project. Android, for example also uses the Linux kernel but includes different components from most desktop Linux distributions. Applelinux (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In the above (long) discussion, an easily supportable point is hidden beneath the "Linux or GNU/Linux?" and "kernel or operating system?" questions - at the very least, and all sides would agree on this I believe: "Linux is a Unix-like operating system" is less correct than "Linux is a family of Unix-like operating systems". Could that small change please be considered upon, without other baggage from the above discussion? This lack of distinction is the first that meets the eye in this article, and as it stands it directly clashes with he first sentences in the articles for every Linux distribution. "Family of" would remove this discrepancy, and make it easier on the eye for a lot of people.

Also, the article already says this, under the "GNU/Linux" section: "The media and common usage, however, refers to this family of operating systems simply as Linux, as do many large Linux distributions".

It is possible to discuss anything in absurdum (as is shown above), but in all honesty: this would be a small change, it would stop contradicting other articles, it would stop contradicting itself, it would still not contradict sources, etc. It is still not perhaps a perfectly rigorous definition of the word "Linux", but it would seem to be the one reflected in "media and common usage", as the article itself admits later, and that is what should be reflected at Wikipedia in this case, correct? 46.239.104.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead used to contain "family of", but it was removed when it was pointed out that few or no reliable sources use this framing and that all it did was make the lead mushier. It's okay in the article body where we can use our own phrasing to clarify the matter, but not in the lead. What's more, it's certainly not the case that this terminology is commonplace: Mac OS X is commonly referred to as "an operating system", as is Windows 7, and even Unix itself as a whole. The current wording is stable precisely because so few people take issue with it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally find that the "Linux is an operating system"-mantra cements confusion from new users that is difficult to clear up, and perhaps that the introduction 'should' be mushy since it is a complex issue.

But let's not reiterate the above discussion and try to be constructive instead: perhaps a more extensive "What is Linux?" section ( naming not decided :-) ) should be most fitting in this article and better satisfy the NPOV criteria. This is not the same as simply the "GNU/Linux naming controversy", which is more specific and actually a subset of this wider question. It could be somewhat based on http://www.linux.org/article/view/what-is-linux and other sources. I believe this should be central to the "Linux" article on Wikipedia - people who look at this want to know what Linux is, and right now it is incomplete in my (and some other vocal participants above) eyes. 46.239.104.5 (talk)

References

Related Articles