Talk:Linux

Linux Text-to-speech (TTS)

See here: https://lwn.net/Articles/655914/

I wander, does this "suckyness" also apply to Android? I admit, I just haven't checked.. and while TTS is only an "application" (or the reverse, speech-to-text), I assumed it was fairly good now in Android, but that would be proprietary Google Now (and Siri, Cortana for others). E.g. are these technologies good in Android, but only in a proprietary form, but what about those included in free software AOSP, that may or may not still be used. And if they are good (or not..), can they be used in "regular" Linux? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comp.arch (talk • contribs)

Linux and GNU/Linux

I still do not understand why you are using Linux as the name of the article devoted to the full operating system instead of GNU+Linux. Following the same pattern the macOS article should be called XNU. Source: OSX Internals. Image of macOS stack. GNU is the equivalent to Darwin libraries and syscalls while Linux is the equivalent to Mach (kernel) plus BSD kernel parts, that is, Linux is equivalent to XNU. It would be more logical to have this article talking about Linux and then an article for each operating system using Linux as its kernel. For instance, Android already exists. The Linux page would serve as pointers to the rest of pages. This article creates confusion and forgets an historical fact: the fork of the GNU C library. Only during three years calling Linux the whole operating system made sense.History of glibc and Linux libc (it is a blog post with references). Using the most common result in Google does not make sense. Additionally it is an ad populum fallacy. Filiprino (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, but we have been over this dozens of times in the past decade and by longstanding consensus operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux" on Wikipedia, as per WP:COMMONNAME and also MOS:LINUX. "GNU/Linux" is considered a minority POV term used by the FSF and its supporters; GNU+Linux is hardly used by anyone, so there is little in the way of WP:RS for that. To get the full background you should read all the archives of this talk page, to get the history of the problem as well as Talk:Linux/Name as this is where past consensuses have been formed. You will also want to read GNU/Linux naming controversy and its talk page as background as well. - Ahunt (talk)

I already know that argument, but I have clearly stated that the current consensus is biased and plainly wrong. I have brought up facts stating that the current definition of Linux is wrong, because it is not coherent with the class of kernels it belongs to. And of course, GNU/Linux is misrepresented in the English Wikipedia (please, do not generalize to Wikipedia). And don't make me start with ad hominem falacies, please. This article does not respect the definition of a Unix-like operating system. It extends the name of the kernel to the rest of the operating system, something which does not make sense, as I already stated (read bibliography and history). This article makes Wikipedia a low quality source of information. Additionally, talking about a controversy is unjustified and makes things more complicated by impregnating with negative connotations the FSF and other people stances with respect to the usage of the term GNU-Linux and Linux. I do not care about GNU{/,-,+,*,:}Linux (pick your symbol). I care about misrepresentation and misinformation. Where could I get this consensus changed? Scientific proof refutes this article name and most of its contents. Thanks. Filiprino (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You get the consensus changed right here, but you are going to have to come up with some more convincing arguments than you have done so far. We work on the "common name" for a subject (not the the largest Google Search result or even the official or "correct name", but the common name in use in society in general), so saying that the common name is imprecise or wrong, or inconsistent with Mac or Unix is not going to prevail. You need to show that the common name is actually something else. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

but you are going to have to come up with some more convincing arguments than you have done so far

Like what? I mean, all relevant sources from the IEEE and ACM have the consensus of using GNU-Linux, not Linux, because Linux is a kernel, not an OS. So you should explain better what you mean, because WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA state things like being precise, concise and consistent. Moreover, recognizability is not fulfilled because people familiar with the subject know that Linux is a kernel not an OS and the article keeps talking about an OS. If you want to read on the kernel you have to visit Linux kernel, which is absurd because Linux is a kernel. Naturalness can not be determined with tools like Google Trends because you have to do a semantic analysis of the results obtained to decide whether searches for GNU-Linux are done using the term "Linux". At least 3 out of 5 goals WP:CRITERIA are not fulfilled, unless the article contents are changed to talk about Linux, not GNU-Linux. As you can see, I am not advocating changing the title to GNU is Not Unix plus Linux, something which blatantly goes against WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. Filiprino (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME simply requires that we use the name that is commonly used; not the technically-correct name or the politically-correct name or the name advocated by any group or person, but the name in common everyday usage. If you go through all the archives as I linked above, you will see we have been around that one many times. In common use the name that describes all Linux-kernel-base operating systems is "Linux", which is why the article is located at the name. Unless you have any new evidence that the name in common use has changed then I think we are done here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice that I have not mentioned any technically-correct name nor politically-correct name. I have mentioned the naming conventions. You are bypassing all the goals explicited in WP:CRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. If I go back to the archives I will see you stating always the same imposing your own criteria. You are the only user that comes back again and again to impose his criteria without attending further reasons. Linux is used for the kernel and GNU-Linux is used for the operating system. You can not say otherwise because you do not have any source for stating that. Your personal opinion means nothing, but bypassing Wikipedia policies goes against Wikipedia policies.

This is false: The Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to refer to the operating system family, as well as specific distributions, to emphasize that most Linux distributions are not just the Linux kernel. Not only the FSF but many others call the OS correctly.

This is false: The defining component of a Linux distribution is the Linux kernel. A Linux distribution does not exist as a software package. What does exist are GNU-Linux distributions, or Android distributions or µlibc-Linux distributions.

Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? Linux was originally developed for personal computers based on the Intel x86 architecture,

Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? Because of the dominance of the Linux kernel-based Android OS on smartphones, Linux has the largest installed base of all general-purpose operating systems.

Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? Linux is also the leading operating system on servers and other big iron systems such as mainframe computers, and the only OS used on TOP500 supercomputers (since November 2017, having before gradually eliminated all competitors)

Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? It is used by around 2.3% of desktop computers.[21][22] The Chromebook, which runs the Linux kernel-based Chrome OS

Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? Linux also runs on embedded systems—devices whose operating system is typically built into the firmware and is highly tailored to the system.

Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? The development of Linux is one of the most prominent examples of free and open-source software collaboration. Filiprino (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Are we talking about a kernel or an operating system? In 1991, while attending the University of Helsinki, Torvalds became curious about operating systems.[39] Frustrated by the licensing of MINIX, which at the time limited it to educational use only,[38] he began to work on his own operating system kernel, which eventually became the Linux kernel.

And I could continue with the whole article. This article mixes a lot of different operating systems in a single bag. The fact is that the different operating systems are incompatible between them, yet this article treats them as all being equal. For instance, supercomputers run GNU-Linux and phones run Android. Embedded systems run propietario OSes or FOSS ones like OpenWRT which is not GNU-Linux nor Android. This article talks about Linux, Android and GNU-Linux without any distinction, when there is a difference. Each OS must have his own page and this article should be devoted to Linux, not Linux, Android, GNU-Linux, OpenWRT and others. Filiprino (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay you have put down your position here. This talk page has lots of editors watching it, so let's see if anyone else agrees with you. - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

As a compromise might I recommend a comment in the lead such as "Linux is the common name given to GNU/Linux although <description of why there is technically a distinction>". Or if not that a section say "Use of the name Linux"Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to contribute my stance. I've waited a long time to see if things will change, but I can't stand this anymore. Wikipedia's current concensus is to refer to the family of operating systems that use Linux as "Linux", not "GNU/Linux", therefore a comment like "Linux is the common name given to GNU/Linux" is inappropriate. If that is Wikipedia's concensus, I find it acceptable to refer to the OS family as simply "Linux". But what I don't accept is that the same should apply to the title of the article. What I'm saying here is that the name of the article should be, most of all, correct. Leaving aside the naming controversy, the article about the family of OSes should be titled "Linux (operating systems)" (pay attention to the plural form of the word "systems"), and the article about Linux itself (which, without stretching the meaning of the word to refer to anything else other than the technically correct meaning, refers to the Unix-like kernel) should be titled "Linux" or "Linux (kernel)". The articles should have a note in the lead section saying that technically the term refers to the kernel, but as of current concensus of Wikipedia editors, it is used to refer to the OS family (and also mentioning the fact that the correct name for the Linux kernel is "Linux" and not "Linux kernel", just as Linus Torvalds named it). Both of the articles should continue to use the terms "Linux" and "Linux kernel" to refer to the OS family and to the kernel, respectively, through the rest of the articles. In a nutshell: This has nothing to do with the content of the articles, but with their titles. There are various reasons why an article shouldn't be titled correctly but actually use a more popular name, but in this case, especially considering the naming controversy, it is much, much more important to title articles correctly. The issues User:Filiprino described on May 8, 2018, 14:56 UTC are another thing - leaving aside the naming controversy, Wikipedia articles must be unambiguous. --85.64.33.163 (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

New section "Code of Conduct Controversy"

This new section was just added and deals with a new code of conduct for Linux kernel developers, plus the associated politics in the Linux kernel dev community surrounding that. I think it is written and referenced fine, just that it doesn't belong here, but in Linux kernel instead, since it is specific to that subject. There is already some information on it there, although it could be expanded. We don't report kernel developer politics here, as this is a high-level article on the Linux biosphere as a whole and doesn't get into that level of specific minutia. I removed it with an edit summary to that effect and the OP reverted it saying, "...Without the Kernel there can be no operating system. Hence though specific to the kernel development mainline, the controversy affects all Linux users and thus belongs herein." Since anything that affects the kernel affects the larger Linux world (distros, etc) then this is an argument to merge that article back into this one. I don't think that is a good reason to include this new section in this article. I propose moving the section to Linux kernel, where I believe it belongs. - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay it seems three other editors have now evaluated it and the section has been removed, so I think that constitutes an editing consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that it was "written and referenced fine", given it mentioned nothing of a controversy and could easily be misinterpreted to imply Linus took a break from the project because of the introduction of the CoC. It also included a grammar error ("This coincide with the adoption..."). It seems to make sense to leave what currently exists in the Linux kernel article—it's written quite a bit better. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried to rewrite to not make that distinction, but that's being interpreted as an edit war, there were intermediate edits so thought that was ok, but apparently not. I agree that it might also belong to the kernel development page, but I think it merits a reference in the main page, possibly with a

Main article: Linux Kernel § Section

. The reason being that a kernel is responsible for allocating any resource to any program running in the OS, so a mass withdrawal of code from the kernel not only cripples the kernel but also whatever runs on top of it. Also the withdrawal of the GPLv2 licensed code would mean that effective on the judgement, the kernel would need to be patched to remove those portions, or the linux foundation would need to pay to license the withdrawn bits to not be in breach of Copyright. Since linux is distributed as free software and underlies much of the internet, thi might result in a massive disruption affecting not just kernel developers.Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe it belong here Criticism of Linux, and should have "main link" in each?Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

To clarify I've never been on a project that was court ordered to remove components, but I know enough about software development to know that it's not easy to instantly remove a component from the master, without the potential for instability. And if things weren't well modularized, it could take a while. And open source isn't known for being well modularized. So I don't know what the aftermath would be like if there was a legal issue, I and some of the developers in the citations are fairly certain that removing code "en bloc" would cripple and disrupt operation, until the removed bits could be implemented.Ethanpet113 (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The threat to insist their code be removed seems to have largely died down since the CoC was implemented, or at least I haven't seen any additional serious discussion of it (and I suspect it would be newsworthy if there was; your reasons above are correct). That is why I think it is WP:UNDUE to include such a lengthy section in this page—some devs threatening to rescind their code but not doing so (as of yet) is nowhere near as relevant as the other subsections in the "History" section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've read the newly removed sections and agree with its removal. It is all about kernel developer politics, so belongs at Linux kernel and not here. This article is a high-level overview of the whole Linux ecosphere. It does not report "trenches level" dev disputes on the kernel development. - Ahunt (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess for the main article on an important project we should wait to see if the scenario progresses any further, it's too early to tell right now. If there is an event somewhere down the line I also agree it will likely be newsworthy and happen "en bloc"(a fancy latin way of saying all at once), so it may not happen for a while and then suddenly happen. But for now we can't confirm if it's a credible threat.Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Should there be a criticism section?

The todo list for this page says

improve the criticism section. Criticism of Linux has mysteriously disappeared over time. (Compare the current article to the "article milestones" listed on this page. Also see the revision history of Criticism of Linux.)"

There doesn't actually to be a criticism section, so it can't really be improved- although there is some criticism in the body of the page. The criticism section is usually prominent on other pages often appearing before the further reading section. Here it seems to have been forked into its own page, and a link included in the see also section. Should there be a summary section for criticism with

Main article: Criticism of Linux

linked, or is the current layout acceptable?

Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Guidance is at WP:CRIT, which does say "In 2006, User:Jimbo Wales weighed in on the question: "In many cases they [criticism sections] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary. And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms."ref" - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)