imported>Pat Palmer |
|
| (75 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{checklist | | {{subpages}} |
| | abc = Linux
| |
| | cat1 = Computers
| |
| | cat2 =
| |
| | cat3 =
| |
| | cat_check = y
| |
| | status = 2
| |
| | underlinked = y
| |
| | cleanup = y
| |
| | by = [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT); [[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 12:47, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| }} | |
|
| |
|
| {| cellpadding="1" style="float: middle; border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #eeeeee; padding: 5px; font-size: 90%; margin: 0 0 15px 15px; clear: middle;"
| | ===Using archive pages automatically=== |
| |-
| | name the archives Archive 1, 2 etc but with a space between them - they will be recognoized by the following template: <nowiki>{{archive box|auto=long}}</nowiki> |
| | style="text-align: center;" | '''<big>[[Linux discussion archives]]</big>'''
| | [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:grey"> <font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 22:01, 1 May 2007 (CDT) Easy isnt it :) |
| |-
| |
| | style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 1, 4-9-07:''' [[Talk:Linux/Archive1]]
| |
| |-
| |
| | style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 2, date?:''' [[Talk:Linux/Archive2]] | |
| |-
| |
| <!-- | |
| | style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 3, date?''' [[Talk:Linux/Archive3]]
| |
| |-
| |
| | style="padding: 0.25em;"|'''Archive 4, date?''' [[Talk:Linux/Archive4]]
| |
| |-
| |
| -->
| |
| |}
| |
|
| |
|
| ==[[Linux]] compared to [[Microsoft Windows]] and [[Mac OS X]]==
| | :Yes, it is :P Thanks for letting me know about that template :D --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 22:12, 1 May 2007 (CDT) |
| Is having the logo in the infobox consistent? If you look at the articles on the other two OSes they both have screenshots, not mascots. I understand that there are a whole plethora of desktops we could show off (GNOME, KDE, FDWM, WindowMaker, etc etc) but don't you think we should pick one and go with it, for consistency's sake? --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 12:57, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| :That's a good point. Wikipedia has Tux at the top. I've honestly never thought of that before. Either way is fine with me. I'll go ahead and revert it to how it was before. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 13:02, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| | ==<big><b>The big re-write</b></big>== |
| | I've begun the big re-write, so don't freak out when you see the article is now a stub :-) I'll try to put all the information back in ASAP, so please bear with me. As a reference, I'm providing a link to the old revision [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Linux&oldid=100084936 here]. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 15:14, 21 April 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| ::This kind of collaboration is what I sorely missed at Wikipedia :0) --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 13:04, 8 April 2007 (CDT) | | :''Linux is an open source operating system. By strict definition, it is rarely seen by the user, because its job is to be a layer between the user environment and the hardware.'' That strict definition should be for the [[Linux kernel]] article, don't you think? [[Linux]] should be the broad general intro. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 20:32, 23 April 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| :::That's one of the problems I have with that site. Heh. I finally figured out how to revert to a previous version via the links :D --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 13:07, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| | True, but I thought it was important to clarify this to begin with. Perhaps we should move that part to the [[Linux controversy]] subsection of this article? --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 20:42, 23 April 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| ::::If I get around to it I'd like to add other OSes such as [[Amiga OS]], [[BeOS]], etc and I think it'll make sense to follow the same infobox-style pattern we've got with Linux, Windows, and OSX --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 13:12, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| | ==Latest releases== |
| | I agree with Pat that we shouldn't display the latest stable releases. These change fairly often, so the article won't be a credible source for that information. -[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 21:25, 20 April 2007 (CDT) |
| | ==about history== |
| | Linux was started in 1991 by a Finnish college student named Linus Torvalds. At the time, the majority of Unix systems were very expensive. The only affordable workstation environment was a proprietary system called Minix. Although the source code was included with this system, the license fee was still a bit pricey, and it was not as good as the systems the workstations in the universities were running. Actually the license for minix was FREE it was developed by a professor at the university where Torvald studied. Torvald used minix as base for linux and expanded it into a networked environment and only later into the open source - where being freely available for universities was his first primary goal. Solid stable and free to use. minix however was a very limited version of the two commercial unixes around (BSD and AT&T). |
| | :monolythic kernels are used by a variety of variations of linux but also microkernel linux/unix are abundant. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:grey"> <font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 21:58, 1 May 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| :::::This infobox is somewhat weird, because there's actually no default user interface, and latest stable release is supposed to be something like "OS X v10.4" or "Vista", not the kernel version. --[[User:Alex Bravo|Rion]] 17:56, 8 April 2007 (CDT) | | ::Well the Linux kernel may have been written by Torvalds, but the other 80% to 90% of the operating system stems from the [[GNU]] project of [[Richard Stallman]]. The impression that Torvalds did the whole thing should be avoided. Stallman deserves as much credit, if not more. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:41, 9 May 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| ::::::Just because there's no default UI doesn't mean that the majority of people don't use it. Should we have a screenshot of a command-line instead? Also re: kernel version: Yes but what is the alternative? The only other option would be to list versions of distros... and then which distro should we use? Ubuntu would be a decent candidate if we went that route... Hmm. Dunno what the best option here is --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 23:14, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| | Its probably important to mention about Ari Lemmke who was the person who named Linux and who first started the first Linux newsgroup, comp.os.linux<ref>https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/</ref>. --[[User:Lal Chandran|Lal Chandran]] |
|
| |
|
| :::::::Perhaps we should take a screenshot of the Linux kernel after booting like you said - no distribution whatsoever. This can be done with an emulator fairly easily. I'll do that so we can see how it looks. As for the version, definitely the kernel IMO. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 23:33, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
| | == Rewrite needed == |
| | I rather think this article requires a rewrite - it should perhaps be reduced as to point to the Linux kernel, GNU project and the Linux controversy. Perhaps even better, just point it to the disambiguation page. |
| | Also, I am not too fond of "Unix-like" as an OS family.<br/> |
| | --[[User:Morten Juhl Johansen|Morten Juhl Johansen]] 06:15, 1 August 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| I just edited [[Linux/Draft]]. That's one way of doing it too I suppose. Maybe the two or three most popular distro versions? --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 00:07, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| | == Refresh / rewrite needed == |
|
| |
|
| :What's the draft article for? --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 00:12, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| | I agree with the others who are calling for a rewrite. We should distinguish between the kernel and distributions. I made a small change tonight because Ubuntu Hardy Heron is already old news. But the article needs much more work. I'm willing to schedule some time to collaborate. ''-- [[User:Tim Chambers|Tim Chambers]] 01:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)'' |
|
| |
|
| ::Just to give folks like you an idea of what it can look like before it goes live lol. Also I edited [[Linux kernel]] and added the infobox, with the "Default user interface" being [[Command line]]. Should the Linux/Draft article be the main article you think? --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 00:20, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| | == History == |
| | | Sorry if I went a little long on the history, but I consider it a pretty complete one now (minus refs to be added soon). I think I would like to see the linux page as VERY short page with links to where everything else is. For example, Linux is made of a kernel, compiler, etc. It is packaged by distributions with [[list of distributions]]. Then move the history to linux_kernel since it has more to do with what Linux actually is over what I think this page should be (what someone new to FOSS would think Linux is: an operating system). If people like the idea and agree with the way I write (see history not this confusing discussions post), I'd be happy to write something up. If not feel free to digress to before I made the changes. |
| :::The main article we edit until our work is approved you mean? --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 00:23, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| | --[[User:John Altobelli|John Altobelli]] 01:01, 6 March 2009 (EST) |
| | |
| ::::No no no lol. I just created the draft article to get an idea of "if the thing looks right" before I threw it up on the main page. We can create Draft articles if we want (see [[Computer/Draft]], although they're not the "official" Draft articles until [[Linux]] gets approved by editors and protected --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 00:41, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Style issues== | |
| In addition to Dr. Sanger's guidance above about adding "history of Linux, different distributions, the philosophy behind it, the sociology of its development, and so forth," check out [[CZ:CZ4WP#Get_ready_to_rethink_how_to_write_encyclopedia_articles.21]] (and the links in the text there) and [[CZ:Article_Mechanics#Narrative_coherence_and_flow]] for some ideas to make this article even better. —–[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 04:05, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==First picture on the article==
| |
| I like the picture of a Linux desktop at the top of the article (though not, as noted below, details in a table below it). I feel the caption of the picture should be simpler for a non-technical person to understand. Maybe something like "A Linux desktop with windows open." And then, over on the picture page itself, there should be details like "GNOME desktop on Ubuntu Linux 6.10". Please realize that a non-techie reader will not have a clue about: GNOME, Ubuntu, or version numbers--at least not until they dig into our excellent articles! :-) [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 09:27, 9 April 2007 (CDT) | |
| | |
| :This is true, and I do see your point. My only argument to that (if you wanna call it that) is that each of the OS articles should be consistent. Linux should look like Windows should look like OS X should look like BeOS, etc. etc. <br/> I do agree with what you're saying though... just a "Here's a typical screenshot of Linux" would be clearer to the non-techie users --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 10:55, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::I agree with Pat. After seeing what the article looks like with the command line, I suggest we get a better screenshot than the mockup I made (hehe.. yes, it has to be a successful boot :P) and put it at the top of [[Linux kernel]], but use a typical screenshot (not distribution-specific.. eg. no Ubuntu or SUSE logos), preferably with Beryl (and please, could we refrain from uploading Vista clones? LOL). --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 11:02, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::OK but here's the flamewar question of the day: do we put up a screenshot of a GNOME dekstop or a KDE desktop? I'd vote for Ubuntu, simply because it's the most popular distro out there right now (even though I personally have run KDE since it was a beta) --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 11:12, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::I concur, though the question remains of whether leaving any trace of which distribution it is would be a problem. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 11:18, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Table at top is distracting; my vision for alternatives==
| |
| Glad to see the continued good work on this page! Please consider moving the table entries which are accumulating at the top of this page (except for the picture) to somewhere within the body of the article itself, or better yet, to sub-articles full of more detail. For example, the names and versions of distributions would belong, in my opinion, on the [[Linux_distribution]] page, and not on the Linux page at all (except for one example perhaps). I feel that the table text distracts from the article text, and furthermore, all that detail that soon may intimidate a non-technical user who has happened upon our page in hopes of getting oriented about what Linux is. This top-level article should be the overall orientation for a not-too-technical reader, and many related articles (such as [[Linux_kernel]] or [[Linux_distribution]] can then become as "geeky" as we like.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 09:27, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :The main reason this was done was to have a consistency in the look of operating system articles in general. If you take a look at [[Linux]], [[Microsoft Windows]] and [[Mac OS X]] they all look consistent in this aspect. --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 10:36, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Haven't gotten to it yet, but I will go and argue for it to be changed on every OS page. It's a holdover from Wikipedia, and it looks like a manual, and I would like to abolish it. These top-level articles should, in my opinion, provide a non-technical person with an elegant introduction to the overall concepts, pointing off to increasingly detailed subarticles. Above all, the top level article needs to help a reader get ''oriented'' in an entire region of knowledge. And somewhere in the Citizendium policy recommendation, they even say "we'd like to get rid of info boxes and summary tables".[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 12:54, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::I second Pat's movement. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 12:56, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Use of "latest" and similar words==
| |
| Whenever something is said to be "latest", I think it's more helpful if you specify as of WHEN it's "latest". Readers cannot easily tell when an author added something that says, for example, "latest distribution". And even if it's the latest today when we add the information, but is it going to be the "latest" one year from now? I don't think we can count on this kind of information remaining current, so please do say "as of April 2006" or some such.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 09:27, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==I'm archiving the older stuff above==
| |
| To keep it easy to read in here, I'm archiving the stuff at the top. I'm not changing or removing any material, and I'll try to keep it all in the order in which it occurred.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 09:38, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Linux and "popularity"==
| |
| Here's a statistic that I looked up for our edification:
| |
| <pre>
| |
| 2006 forecast for market share of software operating systems, by platform:
| |
| | |
| % share forecase for 2008
| |
| | |
| Windows 40%
| |
| Unix 29%
| |
| Linux 15%
| |
| Others 16%
| |
| | |
| FROM: InfoTech Trends http://www.infotechtrends.com/
| |
| report from 1Q 2005, accessed on 4/8/2007
| |
| </pre>
| |
| I suggest we make our here case without superlatives that may seem like we're trying to sell to the unconvinced. As such, I'm trying to avoid saying things like "popular" about Linux although it is, of course, wildly popular among those who work with it all the time and enjoy that.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 10:37, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :I think we should avoid predictions of the future for this topic. I believe it was the same website that once claimed that Linux would have something like 20% of the desktop market by 2007. --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 11:08, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Yeah, "damn lies and statistics". I just don't want us to sound zealous. Of course, I am zealous in reality. I love all computers, yes every single kind, and I'm passionate about it, and I have to censor myself constantly :-) [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 12:56, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::We've also got to keep in mind that the NPOV (neutral point of view) stick isn't going to come along and bash us in the face on every edit (like at that other Wiki-based encyclopedia). We've gotta balance writing "exciting prose that grips the reader" with not leaning too far into the "sales pitch" side of it. I know, I tend to do this too. Passion is passion. :) --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 13:04, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==reorg of old sections, new sections needed==
| |
| Here's some suggestions for where else to take this article. I reorged the old ones into two simpler sections, Origins and Applications. What I think would help, now, would be a section on Linux' successes and failures in the marketplace...I have now moved the long summary that used to be here into the article itself.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 22:16, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Which is correct? ==
| |
| | |
| Is it Linux' or Linux's? Do any of you know which is technically correct?
| |
| | |
| :As far as I know it would be Linux's, because although the name ends in an 'S' sound it's not actually an 'S'.
| |
| Compare with Alex' versus Alex's --[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 15:03, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == GNU/Linux ==
| |
| | |
| Do you guys think the GNU/Linux controversy is notable enough to have its own article? --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 22:36, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :I wouldn't break that out at this time (unless this article becomes too big). I think it's pretty well covered out on the larger world wide web. However, if it really turns you on, perhaps you should go for it.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 23:00, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
| |
Using archive pages automatically
name the archives Archive 1, 2 etc but with a space between them - they will be recognoized by the following template: {{archive box|auto=long}}
Robert Tito | Talk 22:01, 1 May 2007 (CDT) Easy isnt it :)
- Yes, it is :P Thanks for letting me know about that template :D --Joshua David Williams 22:12, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
The big re-write
I've begun the big re-write, so don't freak out when you see the article is now a stub :-) I'll try to put all the information back in ASAP, so please bear with me. As a reference, I'm providing a link to the old revision here. --Joshua David Williams 15:14, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
- Linux is an open source operating system. By strict definition, it is rarely seen by the user, because its job is to be a layer between the user environment and the hardware. That strict definition should be for the Linux kernel article, don't you think? Linux should be the broad general intro. Stephen Ewen 20:32, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
True, but I thought it was important to clarify this to begin with. Perhaps we should move that part to the Linux controversy subsection of this article? --Joshua David Williams 20:42, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
Latest releases
I agree with Pat that we shouldn't display the latest stable releases. These change fairly often, so the article won't be a credible source for that information. -Joshua David Williams 21:25, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
about history
Linux was started in 1991 by a Finnish college student named Linus Torvalds. At the time, the majority of Unix systems were very expensive. The only affordable workstation environment was a proprietary system called Minix. Although the source code was included with this system, the license fee was still a bit pricey, and it was not as good as the systems the workstations in the universities were running. Actually the license for minix was FREE it was developed by a professor at the university where Torvald studied. Torvald used minix as base for linux and expanded it into a networked environment and only later into the open source - where being freely available for universities was his first primary goal. Solid stable and free to use. minix however was a very limited version of the two commercial unixes around (BSD and AT&T).
- monolythic kernels are used by a variety of variations of linux but also microkernel linux/unix are abundant. Robert Tito | Talk 21:58, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
- Well the Linux kernel may have been written by Torvalds, but the other 80% to 90% of the operating system stems from the GNU project of Richard Stallman. The impression that Torvalds did the whole thing should be avoided. Stallman deserves as much credit, if not more. --Ed Poor 17:41, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
Its probably important to mention about Ari Lemmke who was the person who named Linux and who first started the first Linux newsgroup, comp.os.linux[1]. --Lal Chandran
Rewrite needed
I rather think this article requires a rewrite - it should perhaps be reduced as to point to the Linux kernel, GNU project and the Linux controversy. Perhaps even better, just point it to the disambiguation page.
Also, I am not too fond of "Unix-like" as an OS family.
--Morten Juhl Johansen 06:15, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
Refresh / rewrite needed
I agree with the others who are calling for a rewrite. We should distinguish between the kernel and distributions. I made a small change tonight because Ubuntu Hardy Heron is already old news. But the article needs much more work. I'm willing to schedule some time to collaborate. -- Tim Chambers 01:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
History
Sorry if I went a little long on the history, but I consider it a pretty complete one now (minus refs to be added soon). I think I would like to see the linux page as VERY short page with links to where everything else is. For example, Linux is made of a kernel, compiler, etc. It is packaged by distributions with list of distributions. Then move the history to linux_kernel since it has more to do with what Linux actually is over what I think this page should be (what someone new to FOSS would think Linux is: an operating system). If people like the idea and agree with the way I write (see history not this confusing discussions post), I'd be happy to write something up. If not feel free to digress to before I made the changes.
--John Altobelli 01:01, 6 March 2009 (EST)
