Talk:Linux (operating system)

Article Checklist for "Linux (operating system)"

Workgroup category or categories	Computers Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Larry Sanger 12:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT); Joshua David Williams 12:47, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

first comments

Is anyone else amused about how cautious the first paragraph is? It's like two points of view are both trying to express their arguments in one sentence. I'd almost say we should just have a minor heading about Linux vs GNU/Linux. Nick Johnson 11:06, 22 February 2007 (CST)

I wonder if that is not obtained when starting with MIMIX as the start for Linus Torvald's endeavour to create a multipurpose unix version. Put that into historic context to the free software becoming more popular, resulting in (now) consultancy companies prividing free open source linux such as Red Hat and the likes. Robert Tito | Talk 11:12, 22 February 2007 (CST)

I think "Linux" should be about Linux (the thing on kernel.org) and "Linux distribution" should discuss the operating system family &c. I really don't mean to say this in the context of any GNU/Linux name debate (note that I didn't suggest an article named "GNU/Linux distribution"), but the coincidental placement of this comment might make it seem that way. Rather, I think that this is more precise terminology, and that both articles would be able to contain very different sets of information, as a kernel and a family of operating systems are rather different things, even if this family of operating systems is defined by being based around said kernel. Raymond Pasco 20:59, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Raymond - Linux (disambiguation) may be necessary, with links to GNU/Linux and Linux Distribution in that disambig. article. RMS would have a fit if he saw just Linux as its own, standalone article. Eric M Gearhart 11:53, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Too techie still?

OK this article has come a long way, however is it too technical? Should we explain what an operating system is on the Linux page? Should we list examples of other OSes such as Windows and Mac OS X? I realize we lean too much toward technical articles sometimes... what can make this more accessible to Joe Schmoe? Eric M Gearhart 12:18, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

I agree completely. I think it'd be a great idea to explain everything in layman's terms, and gradually build the reader's knowledge. Also, perhaps we should use a higher resolution image of Tux (we need to explain that, too), such as this one. Joshua David Williams 12:24, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

The solution to the resolution problem would be to use a Scalable Vector Graphics (svg)-based image file - its scale is decided by the user (I shoulda thought of that one). I'll try and find a decent one of Tux, that has an acceptable license Eric M Gearhart 12:31, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

OK well MediaWiki doesn't like svg files (it says the file is corrput). I guess I'll try and post something under technical issues on the forum asking about this. An SVG is the best way to do this. We'll see what the forum says. Eric M Gearhart 12:48, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

According to this forum post SVG isn't going to be supported any time soon. Oh well. Leaving the png you uploaded is the best thing to do I spose. --Eric M Gearhart 14:03, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

we're not a manual

I really don't like the section on File System, and other parts of this article that read like a technical manual. I don't think the world needs another book describing the gory guts of Linux. Instead, I think we should describe (briefly) what Linux is, when it came about, and what differentiates it from other operating systems (i.e., it's free, it runs on Intel chips like Windows, it runs on cheap hardware, it's like UNIX and lots of people LOVED unix and wanted to continue using it (perhaps rather than learning new stuff? OK, that's low, I know, I know). Anyway, that's where I think we should be going with this article. All the old stuff has been written about, on the web, ad nauseum. Just Google file permissions and see what you get!Pat Palmer 00:45, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

OK, I've just gone and removed that section on file system, and I'm archiving it here in case anyone is offended.Pat Palmer 01:18, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

I agree with you there Pat... if someone wanted to find out how the Linux filesystem is laid out there are resources online for this (the Linux Standards Base defines the filesystem)
As you said... "we're not a manual" --Eric M Gearhart 04:05, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

I think we should devote a new article to it. --Joshua David Williams 12:47, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Getting close to '1' Status

Do you guys think this article is ready for 1 status? I honestly think it is... the Developed Articles page describes this as "complete or nearly so," which I think the Linux article most definitely is --Eric M Gearhart 12:41, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and change the status to 1. You did a great job cleaning it up. --Joshua David Williams 12:47, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

I can't agree. The article on Linux has to be longer and meatier than this. I'm not saying it's not a great article as it stands--it is--it just lacks huge amounts of information about the history of Linux, different distributions, the philosophy behind it, the sociology of its development, and so forth. --Larry Sanger 12:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

How long is the correct length of an article such as this? Should the Linux article be judged by sub-articles that should be created to cover things? Shouldn't lengthy, detailed History of Linux, Philosophy of Linux Development, etc articles be their own article, and the main Linux article just a brief overview that acts as a front-end to these "drill down deeper" articles? I'm genuinely curious of what the CZ policy will be on this, for my future edits --Eric M Gearhart 13:07, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

I think it needs more work; it's not necessarily a matter of length, but of the style of the writing. To me, the story of Linux is high drama; we can make this better. So let's settle for staying at 2 or even 1 for awhile.Pat Palmer 20:20, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

lol that's the problem with being a geek and not a writer. I'm good with the geek stuff... "outlook not so good" on writing dramatic prose about Linux that grips the reader --Eric M Gearhart 04:15, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Tux image

Do any of you know whether the PNG I uploaded of Tux still falls under the license Eric described? I haven't changed what he wrote yet, so please do if you find that it is not accurate. --Joshua David Williams 12:06, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Linux compared to Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X

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? --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. --Joshua David Williams 13:02, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

This kind of collaboration is what I sorely missed at Wikipedia :0) --Eric M Gearhart 13:04, 8 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 --Joshua David Williams 13:07, 8 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 --Eric M Gearhart 13:12, 8 April 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. --Rion 17:56, 8 April 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 --Eric M Gearhart 23:14, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

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. --Joshua David Williams 23:33, 8 April 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? --Eric M Gearhart 00:07, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

What's the draft article for? --Joshua David Williams 00:12, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

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? --Eric M Gearhart 00:20, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

The main article we edit until our work is approved you mean? --Joshua David Williams 00:23, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

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 --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. —–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! :-) Pat Palmer 09:27, 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_distributions can then become as "geeky" as we like.Pat Palmer 09:27, 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.Pat Palmer 09:27, 9 April 2007 (CDT)