Talk:Linux/Archive 37

A few points quite evident here i like to make, Linux being a common name doesn't make GNU/Linux uncommon, GNU/Linux is a common name, see also the google table on this talk page.

For those who are given privileges to review, and love throwing policies neglecting WP:NOTLAW or WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. I shall quote the WP:COMMONNAME right here, even if WP:COMMONNAME applies like WP:LAW , WP:TRUTH or whatever.

...Ambiguous[4] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.

That is, it also mentions some parts of WP:NATURALDIS. Solely Linux being the page title without "(Operating system)" tag is suggestive that Linux is an operating system and not a kernel. Ok, if you are so smart, since Linux is naturally a kernel (Ok.. if it is not WP:CONSENSUS, read it as "the name of a kernel when it was released"), it is also ambiguous on what Linux really is. I've read up some talks, notice that some of you didn't assume WP:GOODFAITH, accusing the others on WP:CANVASSING behavior, i would like to take away GNU/Linux for just a moment. The page title still doesn't add up. If GNU/Linux isn't available, Linux violates WP:NATURALDIS and "Linux (Operating system)" is appropriate, and effectively crop off half of our debate for both WP:NATURALDIS and WP:CONSENSUS. Come back to the GNU/Linux debate now, since GNU/Linux is also a common name, and it strictly describe an operating system and nothing else. GNU/Linux is the page title instead of Linux, it is just dead simple.

However, the privileged users didn't do a thing, not even "Linux (Operating system)". The name controversy section is also moved all the way down to the bottom, the same goes for introductory line, it doesn't mention GNU/Linux and moves the controversy to the bottom, also, the effort against WP:CONSENSUS. I did assume WP:GOODFAITH and avoid WP:PERSONAL but it is evident or just WP:TRUTH that everything infers the WP:CANVASSING and WP:GAMES behavior. --Mylittleanon (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for reading the archives as well as the WP:MOS before making this talk page comment; most people's first non-userspace edit isn't as well informed which tends to lead to a lot of redundancy. However, please assume the assumption of good faith, because I don't see any bad faith anywhere and the only canvassing situation I can think of is when there was actual canvassing going on, but not accusations that the canvassing was done maliciously or in bad faith. Secondly, a parenthetical disambiguation isn't necessary. The shortcut you refer to, WP:NATURALDIS, says that a parenthetical disambiguation is an option "if natural disambiguation is not possible." Given that the topic is already at a natural title, and is what sources overwhelmingly mean when they use "Linux", that's not cause to move the topic. GNU/Linux is not a common name by any stretch, so there's absolutely no cause to move it from the WP:COMMONNAME to a fringe name that is very seldom reflected by reliable sources, especially when in comparison to the actual common name for the topic.

GNU/Linux as a title also does not properly cover the scope of the article. For example, there's an entire section on embedded Linux that mention devices such as Android. That topic falls well within the scope of the current title, but the group that pushes the GNU/Linux name specifically points out that Android is not GNU/Linux. It's not as simple as a name change, we'd have to change the scope of the article and ignore what reliable sources say in order to fit the name change, and that's the biggest issue; articles should fit reliable sources, not our preferences to the contrary. - SudoGhost 21:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's unclear how Android could be within the scope of the article as this article is not about Linux, but a (group of) operating systems which use Linux as their kernel. Certainly, this usage, while being incorrect, is quite common, so the current article name is possibly appropriate, but then Android doesn't belong as it doesn't share other features with this group of operating systems. Count Truthstein (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

...and Android is not an operating system which uses Linux as its kernel? It falls under the scope you just described perfectly, which means that GNU/Linux would be an extremely inappropriate title for this article given it's scope (as determined by reliable sources) and per the description that you just gave. Just because an operating system uses Linux as its kernel does not mean it is a GNU/Linux operating system. That's not my conclusion, that's per the FSF itself. - SudoGhost 02:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read my comment properly. I didn't say that Android was "GNU/Linux", in fact the opposite if we are going to use that term. Count Truthstein (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

To put it in other terms, if this article is about "something" other than the Linux kernel, then Android is not part of that "something" even though it uses the Linux kernel. This "something" is distinguished by use of certain software packages and architectural features. If you disagree, what is the difference between this article and the Linux kernel article? Count Truthstein (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No I understood you perfectly, I didn't assume that you said Android was GNU/Linux; you said that this article is about "a (group of) operating systems which use Linux as their kernel". By your own criteria and by what reliable sources have said, that includes Android. The point I was making is that the name of this article cannot be changed to GNU/Linux without limiting the scope of the article to the detriment of the article and against reliable sources, and that's in addition to the WP:COMMONNAME issue. - SudoGhost 14:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Evidently you didn't. Maybe you misunderstood the meaning of the word "a": it is only "a group", not "the group of all". (I was not arguing for a name change to GNU/Linux.) You say that reliable sources say that Android is Linux but you don't reference them, so this is not convincing. Count Truthstein (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The references you're asking for are already found in the article and at Android (operating system). Android falls exactly within the scope you gave; it is part of that group. Arguing semantics (in a very unclear manner at that) doesn't really help. - SudoGhost 18:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not part of the scope I gave. It's bizarre for you to claim that I am arguing against myself.

You said the references are at Android (operating system), but looking at that article:

Whether or not Android counts as a Linux distribution is a widely debated topic, with the Linux Foundation^[1] and Chris DiBona,^[2] Google's open source chief, in favour. Others, such as Google engineer Patrick Brady disagree, noting the lack of support for many GNU tools, including glibc, in Android.^[3]

1. [1]

   Ask AC: Is Android Linux?. "Ask AC: Is Android Linux?". Android Central. Retrieved 2013-03-14.
2. [2]

   derStandard.at. "Google: "Android is the Linux desktop dream come true" - Suchmaschinen - derStandard.at " Web". Derstandard.at. Retrieved 2013-03-14.
3. [3]

   Paul, Ryan (2009-02-24). "Dream(sheep++): A developer's introduction to Google Android". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2013-04-03.

The references give differing opinions. From - "Android is built on the Linux kernel, but Android is not Linux".

I did not see any relevant references at Linux. Count Truthstein (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have put my comments back where I wrote them; please do not move my comments out of context; they are still there and can be seen still, but they were relevant to what was being discussed above. - SudoGhost 22:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Android is within the scope of this article the same way GNU/Linux naming controversy is within the scope of this article. That "sources differ" does not mean it can be ignored nor does it mean that it is not within the scope of this article. Otherwise we would remove any mention of GNU/Linux from this page since "sources differ" in that regard as well, with GNU/Linux being an extremely minor "viewpoint". Are you suggesting that we should remove anything from this article where "sources differ"? Or should we follow Wikipedia policy and mention pertinent information as appropriate in a summary style article such as this one? - SudoGhost 22:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You claimed that Android was part of the group of Linux operating systems, and this is what reliable sources said. I showed that sources were divided. I did not say that it should not be mentioned, just that it may not be covered under the term "Linux" as used by this article. 'Are you suggesting that we should remove anything from this article where "sources differ"?' - You are exaggerating and distorting anything I have said for rhetorical reasons, which is unhelpful. Count Truthstein (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I did indeed claim that Android is mentioned under the scope of this article, and reliable sources do indeed show this, nothing you responded with shows differently; "sources differing" do not change this any more than it would change mentions of the GNU/Linux name. How is it that I'm "exaggerating and distorting" something by suggesting that "sources differing" is your rationale, and then in that same comment you say that "sources differing" is your rationale? - SudoGhost 01:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I moved the comment thread because it was not pertinent to the GNU/Linux question. I did not move your comment - your original comment is still there. You refer to Wikipedia policies a lot, but in future please try and make sure they are relevant to the point in hand - throwing them about like confetti does not constitute a genuine argument. Count Truthstein (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I've moved my comments back where they were. Do. Not. Move. Them. They are relevant to that discussion and were made in response to and as part of that discussion. If you want to expand upon that in another section that's fine, but do not move my comments out of context. - SudoGhost 01:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

To other editors: SudoGhost does not seem to understand the meaning of the word "move", or indeed the simplest argument. I will not waste any more time discussing these points with him as he is unwilling or unable to try to understand what I have said. However, I invite further comments from other editors on the questions raised here. (Also, half this conversation is missing because SudoGhost moved it half-way up the page - I'd appreciate backup in fixing this.) Count Truthstein (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You are not permitted to move comments in that manner. There is nothing unclear in this, and no cause to do so. "Half of this conversation is missing" because half of this conversation was written above, as part of another conversation that you removed. You are not permitted to remove half of another conversation just because it wasn't a response that helped you, because half of that conversation is then missing. Do not move other comments without cause, and do not attack other editors when your moves are reverted. - SudoGhost 02:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

SudoGhost is right, Count Truthstein. Do not move or refactor other editors' talk page remarks. And don't whine when you get caught doing it. The proper response is an apology and promise not to do it again. Msnicki (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Both of you should review how decisions are made on Wikipedia: through Wikipedia:Consensus. If you disagree with edits I have done, you should calmly explain the reasons why and explain how policies are applicable. You should have addressed the point that I did not in fact move your comment, only copy it in order to "fork" off a conversation for reasons of clarity. Instead you are shouting and giving me orders like an angry little dictator. I do not have to do what you tell me. Your angry and intemperate responses have turned me off from participating on this page (as I do not wish to get worked up over something so irrelevant) in the last few days. Count Truthstein (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken; you are not permitted to move comments in that manner, even if you claim that it was "only copying"; you removed the discussion and placed it elsewhere, that is moving it, semantics won't change that. Consensus has absolutely nothing to do with it but even if it were, the consensus at WP:TPO says that you are not permitted to do so. So yes, you do have to do what I tell you when in regard to my own comments, just as I would have to do what you tell me in regards to moving or altering comments that you have made. Concerning "shouting and giving me orders like an angry little dictator", you are also not permitted to attack other editors like that. If you are unable to comment on a talk page and remain civil, you may very well be blocked from editing to prevent disruption, because that sort of behavior is disruptive and not permitted on Wikipedia. Resorting to petty name calling when you don't get your way does not help you or what you're trying to achieve, and makes your argument look very weak. - SudoGhost 22:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it "petty name calling" to call out another user's disruptive behaviour? Count Truthstein (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, but that's not what you did because calling someone an "angry little dictator" is not calling someone out for being disruptive, it's disruptive itself. Other than you repeatedly moving the comments despite WP:TPO and name-calling when it was reverting, there was nothing disruptive going on, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. - SudoGhost 22:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Frankly, since Wikipedia has a great deal with anonymous edit, this new account isn't really "new" this time. Back on topic, this section is made separately, because i think it has insight out of evidences, if we don't discuss or debate by examining the evidence and its implications, then our talks are meaningless. In comparison to my previous talk, thank you for policies, the obvious, but do you have a point, i wonder?

> GNU/Linux is not a common name by any stretch, so there's absolutely no cause to move it from the WP:COMMONNAME to a fringe name that is very seldom reflected by reliable sources, especially when in comparison to the actual common name for the topic.

I cant see any back up of your point, so it sounds more like an assumption out of delusion. What i said on the previous talk is that a name is said to be a common name iff it is (sufficiently) common, the other names, no matter how common, are irrelevant. In other words, as long as that name is (sufficiently) common, then it is a common name. i.e. Both Linux and GNU/Linux are common name. It is shown by evidence, the evidence that GNU/Linux is a name of an operating system, which is a name of product instead of a technical term, the evidence that it is cited everywhere in books, distros, software, internet and GNU itself. See also the Google search table above. Address these evidences before making any dangerous claim.

> Secondly, a parenthetical disambiguation isn't necessary. The shortcut you refer to, WP:NATURALDIS, says that a parenthetical disambiguation is an option "if natural disambiguation is not possible." Given that the topic is already at a natural title, and is what sources overwhelmingly mean when they use "Linux", that's not cause to move the topic.

Again, without evidence it is just your wild claim. Any evidence to show that Linux isn't ambiguous? Linux is both evidently and naturally the name of the kernel as admitted by Linus Torvalds, we have consensus on this matter. Parenthetical disambiguation is then required, Linux without tag is ambiguous, it is not a natural option, therefore tag is required.

> However, please assume the assumption of good faith, because I don't see any bad faith anywhere and the only canvassing situation I can think of is when there was actual canvassing going on, but not accusations that the canvassing was done maliciously or in bad faith.

I am disappointed then. Instead of accusations, GNU has distros and software openly use the name GNU/Linux, answer me then, did anyone lawfully challenge the correctness, usage of the name GNU/Linux from these products? How bad is it even if they are speaking for their rights? The one who didn't WP:AAGF is not only you, but also evidently you. No offense, my points are criticism, but it also shows you the workaround and giving you chance. By disambiguating Linux, we make things clear, it also cuts off roughly half of the debate, mainly on the topic "Linux is a kernel, not an operating system". Since I requested you and have given you points, and you didn't have a reasonable answer, if you let the violent delusion on Linux as an operating system instead of GNU/Linux continues, you cant get away with just "honest mistakes". Which means, the canvassing behavior on ambiguous format and title are sound, and you are also dragging us away from WP:CONSENSUS, hence also proves that you are gaming the system, the worst possible violation we cant afford. Many have made decision already that you are gaming the system. I am afraid this is your last chance. --Mylittleanon (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You're wasting everyone's time. There is only one WP:COMMONNAME, not several. And it's Linux, not GNU/Linux by a minimum of an order of magnitude, sometimes two orders of magnitude, anywhere you look. Look at the table of search results I posted earlier on the page. Why is this not clear? Msnicki (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't waste everyone time, if you comment by reading just one sentence in an article, and "counter" it with personal opinion without elaboration. Thank you.--Mylittleanon (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So that's your answer to the search result statistics, which WP:COMMONNAME suggests we consider? That's it? Your answer is to claim these statistics are just my personal opinion? Wow. Just wow. Msnicki (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want to "battle" with you, but your argument didn't address any of my argument. If you read the talk again i cited your table many times, i just find it inconvenient to link precisely your table inside talk page, but if you still miss them, i think it's a safe claim to say it is just your fault. I can roughly elaborate my argument though, if you look up Oxford English Dictionary, commoner and commonest are perfectly legitimate words, the word common describes the property whether something is common or not, without mentioning the relative comparison on the others, hence, according to your statistics, GNU/Linux is a common name, sure, it is not the commonest, it is really clear. According to WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NATURALDIS, WP:PRECISION and WP:POVNAME should be considered, in which i pointed out that GNU/Linux is preferred and the least reasonable option should be "Linux (Operating system)" because Linux is naturally a kernel. All comes from our common sense and consensus. While GNU/Linux and Linux remain controversial, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, hitting the borderline is canvassing behavior, "Linux" being the title and move the opinion against Linux, GNU/Linux, to the bottom section is evidently WP:GAME on the reviewer's role. That's pretty much it. You are feel to talk but if you are not addressing my arguments, you can edit somewhere else. --Mylittleanon (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia we intend should be useful. You're making technical distinctions that the overwhelming millions of people - our users - don't care about when they use the term Linux, not GNU/Linux. This is an article about what Linux is, as those ovewhelming millions of people use and understand the term. It's appropriate to mention the GNU/Linux naming controversy and, on reflection, as you notice from my edit just now, I think it's appropriate to move that mention into the lede paragraph. But the term the overwhelming majority of people will want to look up is Linux, not GNU/Linux. Beyond that, may I counsel that we work by WP:CONSENSUS, which is about trying to get along with others, not about telling them to go away, especially when you've only been here a few days yourself. Msnicki (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• When reliable sources use the word Linux, they overwhelmingly mean this topic, not just the kernel. That means that WP:PRECISION does not support that move, since the current title is the most precise. When reliable sources refer to the Linux kernel, they generally specify "Linux kernel", not just "Linux", so there's no reason to move the title to a parenthetical disambiguation, as WP:NATURALDIS doesn't support that move either. WP:POVNAME also doesn't support the move, since "GNU/Linux" is not the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject; the neutrality is not the issue. - SudoGhost 18:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Searching on Google for "linus torvalds creator of" yields several sources which say that Linus Torvalds created Linux (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18423502). He created Linux, that is, an operating system kernel. It is quite common in reliable sources to say that Linus Torvalds is the creator of "Linux", as opposed to the "Linux kernel". Count Truthstein (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That BBC source isn't referring to merely the kernel, which is pretty evident. In fact, it specifically uses "Linux kernel" when referring to the kernel itself, and is absent when not referring to the kernel. That example doesn't support your assertion at all. - SudoGhost 01:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The article contains the following use of words: "Linux creator", "developed the first version of a Linux operating system", "Linux-based systems". In each of those the kernel is being referred to but the word "kernel" is not used. Count Truthstein (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You're seeing something that isn't there, because when the article then uses "Linux kernel" to refer to the kernel, wording which is absent when not specifically describing the kernel, that refutes your claim that it's referring specifically to the kernel throughout the article. - SudoGhost 22:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My point stands - it uses both "Linux" and "Linux kernel" to refer to the kernel, as I showed. Count Truthstein (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Only the source you used doesn't support that at all, it actually refutes your argument, so I don't see where you "showed" anything of the sort. I'm not doubting that there are a few sources that may refer to the Linux kernel specifically as "Linux", but the example you gave certainly isn't one of them. Even amongst the reliable sources which use the term "GNU/Linux", the kernel is still overwhelmingly referred to as "Linux kernel" because to refer to the kernel solely as "Linux" is way too ambiguous; even the FSF, one of the only examples I can find of a source that uses "Linux" specifically to refer to the kernel uses an extremely detailed amount of context when referring to the kernel solely as "Linux" to avoid any confusion. - SudoGhost 22:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There's not much I can say other than I disagree. I think the examples I gave were quite clear. Torvalds created the Linux kernel, and he is referred to as the "Linux creator". He did not create other components of a operating system; therefore the word "Linux" in the phrase "Linux creator" is evidently referring to what he created, the Linux kernel. Taking another example, "Linux-based systems" are systems based on the Linux kernel. The word "Linux" there cannot be referring to a larger system than the kernel, otherwise it would actually mean "Linux kernel-based system-based system", which would be absurd. Count Truthstein (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Merely citing WP:NATURALDIS, WP:PRECISION, WP:POVNAME and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL without explaining how they apply isn't much of an argument. WP:NATURALDIS is about what to do if the title you want has been taken already. WP:PRECISION is about being precise enough but no more. WP:POVNAME says pick the single most common name in English-language sources if there is one. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL is about unverifiable speculation. WP:NATURALDIS and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL aren't even relevant to this discussion and the rest don't offer Mylittleanon any support at all! Msnicki (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea.. It is because this is a small chunk of summary written specifically for you or those who don't read. I wrote this much above to offer support on my arguments, is it a bit unfair to say that --Mylittleanon (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The three quotes are there to show their existence, to show the abuse of language appears often on throwing guidelines, WP:COMMONNAME in this case, saying that many issues are concerned and not just common name. Again, I think it is better to address the evidence given on my previous talk. Since i've seen some efforts on cleaning up the bad faith, i am really looking forward to your comments.

On reliable sources, you omitted the fact that "Linux" is legitimate to refer to the kernel as well, it is not just the OS, which is not referring to this topic, hence, it is not precise. It is also not consensus as you can see on talk page. Consider Linux is naturally a kernel and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, disambiguation on "Linux (Operating system)" and "Linux (Kernel)" is important, say, "Linux kernel" can be a redirect and "Linux" on disambiguation. --Mylittleanon (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't help to continue to throw around "bad faith" where there is none, and the common name for the Linux kernel is just that; Linux kernel. There is a huge difference between "legitimate to refer to the kernel" as Linux, and it coming anywhere close to being the WP:COMMONNAME for that topic. That the kernel could technically be referred to solely as "Linux" doesn't matter, because sources very seldom do so. This means that "Linux" is in no way the WP:COMMONNAME for the Linux kernel article, and therefore there is no issue with conflicting precision and no cause to move this topic to an unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation. Even if Linux were the common name, that still wouldn't be cause to move this topic, since when sources use the term "Linux", it overwhelmingly refers to this topic, not the kernel. WP:PRECISION has nothing to do with that and gives absolutely no reason why this page should be moved. - SudoGhost 05:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• No new arguments here, so I suggest pointing to previous arguments and ignoring. Obviously there's a lot of components to Linux, and the GNU project shouldn't receive disproportionate credit. Please go write some open-source code. II | (t - c) 18:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No new arguments here, so I suggest pointing to previous arguments and ignoring. Obviously there's a lot of components to GNU, and the Linux foundation shouldn't receive disproportionate credit. Please go write some free software.

Or, give me some points applicable on Linux only. --Mylittleanon (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the cut of your jib

Seriously though, one could also make the claim that operating systems based on the joint combination of the GNU userland and the Linux kernel are really distributions of GNU, with the kernel Linux added. 7sagan (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)